Thread by @DefenseAssange

Day 3: Julian Assange extradition hearing -- we expect to hear testimony from Paul Rogers, emeritus professor of peace studies at Bradford University, and possibly Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower #AssangeCase

Professor Rogers is taking the stand. He's been asked to talk about Julian Assange's political views and statements.

Rogers is testifying that he sees Assange's views as in contrast to those of successive US administrations, particularly the Trump admin

Rogers is talking about the Afghan War Diaries, the picture they provided the public in contrast to the way the US government portrayed it as a success

Similarly with the Iraq war and the Iraq War logs, there had before been little evidence that it was going badly wrong, as the US portrayed it as a success story

"Possibly the most important part of the whole thing" was that WikiLeaks' releases showed 15,000 previously uncounted civilian casualties

Bringing to the American public a very disturbing aspect of the whole war

Professor Rogers' statement is here: defend.wikileaks.org/wp-content/upl…

All statements from witnesses who've testified are available here: defend.wikileaks.org/extradition-wi…

Rogers confirmed the importance of the Manning disclosures, there is much greater caution about Western countries entering wars at an early stage, which is due in part to the publications of WikiLeaks.

Now discussing Assange's views, a speech he gave to the UN, an anti-war speech at Trafalgar Square in 2011, as well as Mairead Maguire nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2019

Jan 2019: Mairead Maguire Nominates Julian Assange for Nobel Peace Prize worldbeyondwar.org/mairead-maguir…

Oct 2011: Julian Assange Leads Afghanistan Protest in London commondreams.org/news/2011/10/0…

Testifying to Assange's "very clear" political view, anti-war can't be reduced to anti-American, it's a wider view than that

To sum it up, the combination of transparency and accountability make up the core of his beliefs, from what I can see

Does he have a clear political opinion? He does clearly, the problem is it doesn't fit clearly into conservative or liberal, it's a more libertarian view

From Rogers' statement:

"the opinions and views of Mr Assange, demonstrated in his words and actions with the organisation WikiLeaks over many years, can be seen as very clearly placing him in the crosshairs of dispute with the philosophy of the Trump administration"

It is clear that Assange is being opposed because of the success of WikiLeaks in bringing information to the public. This is dangerous to the Trump administration – “the root of it is that Assange and what he stands for represents a threat to normal political endeavor”

In addition to opposing Assange's words and views, to some extent, the fact that Obama didn't prosecute should be considered in why Trump is prosecuting

Rogers: “if you go back to the Refugee Convention in 1951…it is clear, together with religion and nationality, that political opinion is a valid reason to seek refugee status. I think there is no question that Mr Assanage is motivated by his own political opinions”

Defense: "And that has brought him into conflict with a US administration which is targeting journalists and whisteblowers and protecting the US way of life even if it means use of torture?

Rogers: "Yes"

“This whole case has taken a course which is shaped by the changing political circumstances in the US….I think it is in part the political views of President Trump himself – with his views on fake news and considering himself beset by threats by the fourth estate”

James Lewis QC now cross-examining Prof. Rogers for the prosecution. Asks, "what is a political opinion?"

Rogers talking about the history of political opinion back to Greece & Rome. Lewis interrupts him to "try and be much more concise"

Lewis says not to give a speech. The judge says, 'you just asked him what is a political opinion.'

Lewis says Assange also has views on corporations, and on NGOs. Those aren't political opinions do you? Rogers says they wouldn't have previously, but in modern day, the definition has expanded, particularly in last 50 years. Assange has view on transnational elites

Rogers talking about Assange's "anti-war" views come through strongly.

Lewis: does being a journalist mean holding strong political opinions?

Hard to answer succinctly. Lewis: does *simply* being a journalist mean holding strong political opinions? Not necessarily

Lewis asks about Benkler's description of Assange in the 4th estate. Rogers starts to answer, Lewis again angry he's going on too long

Yochai Benkler, A Free Irresponsible Press: Wikileaks and the Battle Over the Soul of the Networked Fourth Estate dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/10900…

Lewis and Rogers talking about political opinions coming into journalism. Rogers saying choosing what to publish and what not to is a political opinion

Lewis: does he believe in publishing secrets at any cost?

He doesn't say publish everything, but pushes transparency much further than is the norm

Would he say transparency is OK even at the expense of harm to others?

I wouldn't say that

Rogers again says he can't give short, yes/no answers to these complex questions

Lewis wants Rogers to talk about Assange's comments on WW2. Rogers apologizes that he can't view the documents referenced due to technical difficulties. Lewis says 'well you had no problem when the defense was asking'

Rogers apologizes for not coming in person, says there's a family issue

Lewis asks Rogers about Assange's statement, "German invasion of Poland was based on carefully constructed lies", what political opinion does that evidence? Political opinion, others may not agree with

"Journalists are war criminals", what political opinion does that evidence?

Lewis talking about the GUE/NGL Award given to Assange -- says it was based in part on "need" and the fact that they want to see him released. Rogers: I don't see why you're connecting this to 'political opinion', I don't agree with every view he has, but he has them

April 2019, Assange, Motarjemi & Rui Pinto win GUE/NGL whistleblower prize guengl.eu/assange-montar…

Lewis and Rogers talking about Assange's views again on politics, autocratic regimes. Rogers' answer concludes 'it's an interesting view, not necessarily traditional political science, but it's an opinion.' Lewis not pleased with answer, is moving on

Lewis now turning to Rogers' credibility as an expert witness. 'You understand you're to be unbiased?' Yes

Lewis wants to take Rogers through the prosecution's supporting evidence for the indictment

'So you know Gordon Kromberg has specifically said this is not a politically motivated prosecution' yes

Why don't you mention Kromberg in any part of your expert report? I was asked to deal with specific aspects of the case. But there is abundant evidence that this is politically motivated by the change in administration in the US

I can take you through those reasons more if you like. Lewis: no I want to talk about you as an expert. Your duty is not to the defense, it's to the court

Rogers: I agree with that. I'm not a lawyer, I'm approaching this-

Lewis interrupts - but you've adopted what Chomsky, Feldstein, Shenkman, Andy Worthington say, but not one iota contrary to what the defense says

Can you explain? Yes, I see the reasons for political motivation far more important. I take it as read that the US govt would say it isn't

Defense rises to say Rogers' statement includes the caveat,
"if the view of the above defence experts is correct"

(Gordon Kromberg is an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia na.eventscloud.com/ereg/popups/sp…)

Rogers says he took the view this is politically motivated, says what Lewis is bringing up is anomalous

You've specifically been dealing with whether the prosecution is based on criminal justice concerns or whether it's unfairly prosecuting for political reasons - you gave an unequivocal answer. I want to understand why you didn't add in or explain the other side of the coin

To the view that this is not a politically motivated prosecution, what about the evidence? Have you seen the evidence underlying the charges against Assange? I'm not a lawyer

Lewis asks again, have you seen the evidence? Yes

That's not true. Rogers misunderstood

The evidence hasn't been given yet, still hasn't been tried. Rogers thought he meant Kromberg's submission.

So have you seen the evidence against MR Assange? Not the evidence the US is reserving for its trial.

So you haven't? you just said I can't have seen it

Hypothetically, if the evidence is overwhelmingly strong that a person has committed a crime, how can you say the prosecution is brought on a politically motivated basis?

Rogers: we are talking about a change in political attitudes

Rogers: I must return to the fact that this is charged after the previous administration didn't bring the prosecution, this is years later

Prosecution's Lewis going over rules for federal prosecutors, must be unbiased.

Rogers: may be true in theory but in practice, but a rather large number of prosecutors are appointed from the center, there is a risk of direction coming from above

What evidence do you have that this is coming from prosecutors' political motivation?

Rogers: Do you mean the people at the top? At the Dept of Justice they are essentially politically appointees

Rogers: I would like to explore that this prosecution is brought after 8 years, this is why it's political prosecution, but I understand you wouldn't like me to talk about that.

Lewis: no we'll get to that in due course

Rogers: I'll take it as read that the staff of the dept of justice will do as they ought to, unbiased etc. But that is in the context of the political situation which I've talked about

Lewis again: federal prosecutors are forbidden from taking politically motivated cases?

Rogers: I understand that, but who decides which cases are brought? especially 8 years later?

Rogers: not saying fed prosecutors are acting in bad faith, I'm saying that at a different level a political decision was taken to take this case up after 8 years

Lewis: what difference does that make? If someone says, let's have another look at that, does that make it politically motivated?

Rogers: no, I'm saying what else has changed. Has any evidence been brought since? Why wasn't this prosecuted earlier?

Lewis wants to talk about Rogers' work on the army and Northern Ireland and political prosecutions

Moving on. Tell us what you understand the indictment is prosecuting Assange as doing?

Rogers: From the view of prosecutors? breaking US laws

Is he being prosecuted for publishing the Collateral Murder video? I doubt specifically that, I imagine the indictment is more narrow, but the publication of that video is viewed as damaging by multiple political admins

Lewis: if this were political, wouldn't he be charged for publishing that video? Before full answer, Lewis goes back to indictment -- reads about conspiring with Manning to crack password, 'that's got nothing to do with publishing on the internet does it?'

Rogers: I understand that will be contested, including by Assange, but again we go back to the wider context in which this is brought

Lewis arguing the charges are limited to publication about named sources. So the charge against Mr Assange is 'narrowly limited' where the publications included unredacted names at risk of grave harm? Do you understand that?

I understand that is what the prosecution says.

Rogers: again this is brought to a higher level than this. I take it that the prosecutors are acting in good faith. No issue with the way it is being done within the Dept of Justice. but my concern is to take an overview of the context of when this is brought.

We also need a wider view of the war and information surrounding it

We'll take a 10 minute recess now. #AssangeCase

Court back in session. Lewis: so you don't think federal prosecutors are acting in bad faith? Rogers: that's correct

Rogers: I don't doubt they believe there is a case to be made.

Your position is that at a high level, a political level, a decision has been made to bring this prosecution? Rogers: yes but this requires a longer answer than a yes/no.

Rogers: the question is why is it that Obama admin decided not to and the Trump admin did? Major political changes in the US, particularly 2017 to now

Lewis: you'll have read what Mr Kromberg says about that?

Rogers: Yes - he basically disputes that. I can tell you why the evidence supports that this is a political prosecution, if you'd let me I'd be happy to do so.

Again to 2013 WaPo article on Obama admin deciding not to prosecute (washingtonpost.com/world/national…)

Lewis interrupts Rogers attempting to explain political motivation yet again

Lewis again quoting this paragraph, wants to stress the investigation was ongoing

again quotes @wikileaks' @khrafnsson saying they didn't expect prosecution, Rogers says that's what you'd expect from that organization

Lewis: was it possible to arrest Mr Assange in 2013?

Rogers: is it necessary to be able to arrest someone to bring a prosecution?

Lewis: what would be the point if he's hiding in the embassy?

Rogers: well to put pressure on him

Rogers: it would have made very good sense to bring it at that time, to show a standing attempt to bring Mr Asange to justice

Lewis quoting same things as he did to Feldstein yesterday, including Barry Pollack in the US.

Rogers: again that's exactly what I'd expect from his lawyer in Washington

Again and again Rogers saying there was no decision taken to prosecute Assange under Obama, and there has been a change, essential to consider this

Lewis wants Rogers to be specific that there was no decision to prosecute under Obama, not that there was a decision *not* to prosecute

Lewis going back to WikiLeaks tweet from Sept 2016 saying Assange would accept prison for Manning pardon. So they believed there was still the possibility of prosecution?

Rogers: again, what you'd expect, they cannot be sure there'd be no charges, perfectly reasonable

Lewis: so we've moved from "decision not to prosecute" to "no decision taken to prosecute" is that right?

Rogers: yes that's where we've gotten to. I accept at the lower level some investigation still going on

Lewis: so your statement relies on defense experts being correct, is that right? Yes

And if they're not correct, or the court takes the opinion they're not correct, your opinion would change?

Rogers: Not necessarily, depends on the nature of the change and evidence brought

Prosecution's Lewis: You read the evidence of defense witness Eric Lewis - want to see if you agree with it or how it affects your opinion. What he says is Trump's motivation for Assange being prosecuted

Again from yesterday, the theory that Trump wants to distract attention from Assange and WIkiLeaks publishing docs that benefited Trump. You agree with that?

Rogers: no, may have been one reason, but not the only one not by a long shot. You have to see the wider context

Rogers: Reading into it could see that there's a threat to the legitimacy of Trump's election, but I'd need to go into it in further depth.

Discussing why Trump would want to bring this out in a trial

Rogers: very strong mood in the US, particularly by supporters of Trump to see Assange as beyond the pale. May have been a factor. Views given by Eric Lewis not the only ones by a long shot that point to a change in Trump admin

Lewis: come on professor, you're being biased to Mr Assange

Rogers strenuously objects, says he isn't saying anything in order to support Mr Assange.

End of Lewis's cross-examination.

Defense questioning Rogers again, back to Assange's anti-war speech.

Iraq war result of lies - that's WMD.

German invasion of Poland, that's Nazi lies yes? Rogers: yes

Lewis objects: leading question

Defense rephrases: when Lewis mentioned lies in German invasion, whose lies?

Rogers: Hitler's lies.

Reasonable point to make? Yes, pity he wasn't' able to give full context but yes reasonable point to make

Back to the political motivation of the Trump admin.

Rogers: Statements by Pompeo, Sessions, others that this prosecution should be brought. A direct contrast to Obama admin, has to be considered

By end of Bush admin, views changed against the wars. Obama able to run against the war in 2008 election. Obama took the view initially though that Afghan war had to be continued, even to increase, but view was to eventually bring it to an end

Point is that Obama admin accepted neither war could be won. WikiLeaks' leaks confirmed that behind the scenes the military knew this was untenable situation

Rogers: the point about all of this was that this explains why American politics had moved on by 2015-16, though I accept as Lewis said there was something ongoing at a lower level. but when Trump was elected there was a sea change

Rogers: The Trump admin sees the networked fourth estate as a potential danger

Defense's Fitzgerald back to the WaPo article on no decision to prosecute. Was that a significant decision?

Rogers: WaPo generally reliable on these matters. Obama Admin likely was on the point of deciding *not* to prosecute.

Fitzgerald reviewing 2019 article on some Trump admin prosecutors disagreeing not to prosecute Assange under Espionage Act (washingtonpost.com/world/national…)

Rogers: differences of opinion at quite a high level. May be a political level. Throws further light on the change between the Obama admin and the Trump admin. Not purely a matter of law.

Rogers: can't know if Trump directly said to a prosecutor to bring it, but influence was felt from the top down

Also need to go back to the changing perception of the Iraq and Afghan wars in the US over several years

Rogers talking about Obama admin commuting the sentence of Chelsea Manning. Think the admin was very unhappy about that. Could be a factor in the Trump admin bringing the Assange prosecution to court. I understand a commutation can't be turned around by a subsequent admin.

(Think the Trump administration was very unhappy about that)

4 months after William Barr took office, Trump admin brought an indictment against Assange expanded with 17 more charges. These charges brought against objections of prosecutors

Rogers: Mr Sessions had initially been favored by Trump, replaced by Barr, much bigger prosecution brought soon after with higher prison sentence. Further evidence of pressure brought on the system rather than specific individuals

End of Professor Rogers' testimony. #AssangeCase

Recess until 2pm. @trevortimm of @FreedomofPress will testify after the break over videolink.

Court resuming now after technical difficulties, Trevor Timm is testifying by videolink

Timm is the co-founder of @FreedomofPress, which tracks press freedom violations and advocates for protections to press freedom: freedom.press/about/

Timm recounting historical violations of press freedom in the US, Nixon admin going after NYT after the Pentagon Papers leak

Trevor Timm's witness submission: defend.wikileaks.org/wp-content/upl…

Discussed Supreme Court roundly rejecting this First Amendment violation

Discussed @petersterne's article 'How the Espionage Act morphed into a dangerous tool used to prosecute sources and threaten journalists' freedom.press/news/how-espio…

"In each and every case, the government concluded or was forced to conclude" an Espionage Act prosecution would violate First Amendment protections, including the Obama admin's 2013 determination not to prosecute WikiLeaks

Recounting actions against James Bamford, and Bush admin threatening to use Espionage Act against NYT reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau who published about Bush admin wiretapping (in 2005 here: nytimes.com/2005/12/16/pol…)

"There is a long history of courts talking about the process of newsgathering." Materials journalists often write about and print do not magically land on their desks. They talk to sources, ask for clarification, ask for more information. This is standard practice for journalists

Many accounts in this indictment would criminalize this behavior. Just the mere thought of obtaining these documents, the US govt is saying is potentially criminal. This would criminalize every single reporter who obtained docs like this even if they didn't solicit

Timm: this is almost a consensus opinion among press freedom groups and media law lawyers who have looked at this indictment. This is why newspapers, even those who have criticized Mr Assange, have condemned this indictment

Talking about AIPAC case, only time in modern history the US used Espionage Act against someone who wasn't a government employee. They were receiving info and passing to journalists. Journalists were extremely worried at the time about the precedent but ultimately case fell apart

Timm: many journalists we know and love would be prosecuted under this theory. Woodward and Bernstein could have been charged in the wake of persistently asking for and receiving information from Mark Felt during watergate. Many more examples, BALCO scandal, etc

('US government to drop espionage charges against Aipac officials' theguardian.com/world/2009/may…)

Timm discussing the way the indictment criminalizes the secure anonymous submission system. Freedom Press Fdn builds SecureDrop for journalists, now used by more than 80 major news outlets for newspapers, some of whom explicitly ask for leaked documents

References respected ICIJ which published Panama Papers using this submission system

'Freedom of the Press Foundation Launches SecureDrop, an Open-Source Submission Platform for Whistleblowers'
freedom.press/news/freedom-o…

Timm talks about news outlets even taking out ads to notify sources that they could leak securely in this way

If in 2009 someone said I want to use an anonymous submission system in this way, am I at risk of prosecution, what would you say? I'd have said that's First Amendment protected speech

Timm talking about the 'Most Wanted List', emphasizes that this is a 'wiki' meaning not just WikiLeaks saying these docs should be public, it was members of the public, scholars, journalists, activists, not just WikiLeaks asking for this info

References @EFF article 'Wikileaks-Hosted "Most Wanted Leaks" Reflects the Transparency Priorities of Public Contributors' eff.org/deeplinks/2020…

Talking about Senate Commitee investigation of CIA torture, the classification system was used to shield from accountability, so it was my view that a whistleblower in the govt should leak it

Heavily redacted Senate report: intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/…

Timm: My view is this indictment is clearly unconstitutional #AssangeCase

If this were to go forward it would potentially criminalize all news orgnaizations.

End of defense questioning. Now James Lewis for the prosecution's cross-examination

Lewis asks Timm about his obligations to the court (as he's done for each defense witness so far). Timm: to use his experience, present objectively.

Lewis: what about being unbiased? Absolutely

Lewis: you've contributed to WikiLeaks costs in this case?

Yes, as I disclosed. We believe this indictment is a threat to press freedom, and found the press freedom issues paramount so we contributed to the legal defense

FPF contributed $100,000 to the legal defense.

Any agreement to be reimbursed? No not that I'm aware of.

Do you yourself feel threatened if this prosecution went ahead?

Timm: I work on behalf of journalists in the United States, I feel their rights are under threat. I am not a full-time national security reporter, not talking to sources who may give me info on a daily basis

My fear is on behalf of those journalists

But we just saw where you asked for a whistleblower to leak the Senate report?

Yes I believe that's protected speech.

Espionage Act written so broadly that even people reading this information in the newspaper could be at risk of prosecution

Lewis: so if this went forward you wouldn't feel comfortable asking for leaks as you have in the past?

Timm: I was advocating for info to be sent to other reporters, not necessarily to me. But many other journalists ask for it to be sent to them, would be criminally liable

Lewis: experts in UK must not have conflict of interest, it appears you may have one.

Timm: as a press freedom advocate I have an interest in this yes, my full-time job is to protect reporters' rights, and that's what I'm testifying in this case

Lewis: my sense from your submission is this prosecution would be [hard to hear] wedge to prosecute journalists, is that right?

Timm: yes

Lewis: but opinion is that Assange is not a journalist. Do you understand that?

Timm: I do but in the US the first amendment protects everyone. whether you consider Assange a journalist doesn't matter, he was engaging in journalistic activity

Lewis asks Timm to consider Gordon Kromberg's declaration. Timm: I was given this 300-pg document in the last 24 hours. But I'm familiar generally.

Timm: it's likely I was sent it, like every witness that has come previously. The official sending by the prosecution within 48 hours of needing to testify is rather short notice

Lewis: have you been watching other cross-examination?

Timm: no, been following live tweets on the hearing

Are you telling us you haven't seen Kromberg's submission from February? (going over dates now, last one is 2nd September)

Yes I was referring specifically to the 355-pg filing in last 48 hours

Timm: I just feel the prosecution should have sent this all with more notice so we have a sense of what is all at issue here

But in any event I'm happy to discuss anything in this material

Lewis: I want to know why you excluded anything from the government / Kromberg in your submission.

Timm: no intentional exclusion, my intent was to talk about journalism in the US and Wikileaks in the context of that

Lewis: Going back to the government's position which is that Mr Assange is not a journalist

Lewis quoting US DoJ: the department doesn't go after journalists, believes Assange is no journalist

So I want to know why you think this prosecution is the thin edge of the wedge to then prosecute journalists. The government is saying it's not targeting journalists, going out of its way to do so

Lewis cont'd: so isn't it odd that, if this is a wedge to go after journalists, that the government would go out of its way to say it doesn't go after journalists? Do you find that odd?

Timm: no not at all

Objection to phrasing, Lewis rephrases to effectively ask the above ^

Timm: No, I based my opinions not based on a Justice Department press release but on what is actually contained in the indictment. There are several charges that deal with the mere fact that WikiLeaks had these in their possession

Timm: you say there are 3 charges dealing with publication just of docs with names, but the rest of the charges deal with all of these document sets, and this criminalizes journalism.

The aspect of criminalizing publication worries me greatly but there are many other charges as worrying or more, that could criminalize journalistic practice whether you consider Mr Assange a journalist or not

Lewis: what about the hacking charge? We say (defense lawyer) Mr Summers has misstated the prosecution's case consistently

Lewis referencing court opinions where the publication of information had to be based on information obtained lawfully - from the source even when source obtained it unlawfully

Defense's Summers QC asks Lewis to go through the whole section rather than quoting selectively from that section

Talking about the conspiracy to commit computer intrusion charge, Manning and Assange discussions. Timm says journalists in general often work to keep sources confidential, promise anonymity to their sources

Lewis: but there is a line between that and criminal activity? Timm: there could be a line yes

Lewis: have you seen the evidence in this case on this charge?

Timm: as I understand it relies on chats between Manning and Assange

Lewis: but the GJ was secret so may have other evidence you haven't seen?

Timm: if the evidence was secret, I haven't seen it

You understand a grand jury has found probable cause in this case?

I understand that is the case yes

Lewis: would a responsible journalist, or any journalist, publish the name of a 3rd party knowing publishing would put that person's life in danger?

Timm: to me who is and isn't a responsible joruanlist is entirely different than legal and illegal conduct.

To my knowledge no court has said publishing this type of info is criminal. Joe Lieberman tried to bring the SHIELD Act to criminalize this, that bill didn't pass. That tells me that 1) it wasn't illegal and 2) congress felt it was protected activity

Timm: whether I think it's responsible or whether I would have published shouldn't be relevant as to whether this is protected First Amendment activity

Lewis reading Guardian story on WikiLeaks media partners criticizing publication of unredacted cables

Does that make you change your last answer? No absolutely not. I'm not saying WikiLeaks has perfect editorial judgement just as I wouldn't say NYT or Guardian has perfect editorial judgement, shouldn't matter whether it's illegal

And I certainly don't think the US Government should be the one to determine whether this was good editorial judgement

Timm: I should note that all the news outlets you referenced as condemning the unredacted publication have all condemned this indictment and are worried about the liability they have because of it

Lewis: You've said the USG shouldn't be arbiter of editorial decisions, but won't the USG decide whether it's illegal?

Timm: it may go to a jury but then it would go to a judge and likely a higher court, where these types of decisions are made

Lewis: why should your opinion be preferred over the opinion of the courts in the US?

Timm: my opinion is actually in line with the courts on this matter, this is unprecedented and hasn't come up before.

Timm: The Supreme Court is almost wholly on the side of Mr Assange on this matter

Lewis: so you think it's legal to publish info knowing it would cause harm or death?

Timm: first of all I don't think anyone knows if it would cause harm, and Manning trial showed no deaths

Publication of some information may cause harm, but in the US we have decided that the First Amendment protects this. This is not me saying that I would have made the same decision, I'm saying editorial judgment should not be decided by the US government.

Lewis: would it surprise you that Mark Feldstein completely disagrees with you, he says it was wrong to publish these names

Timm: you're twisting my words, I didn't say it was right, I said it shouldn't be for the US govt to prosecute under the Espionage Act

You're not a lawyer? no. So what basis do you have to comment on US law?

Well I passed the bar in NY, but instead of practicing law I decided to explain the law to a non-legal audience

I have for 8 years run a nonprofit, and while I don't represent us legally, we often sign onto amicus briefs in various cases around the country that touch on press freedom issues

Lewis: you've said this prosecution is a war on journalism. Do you stand by that? (references this paragraph of Timm's statement)

Timm: Yes - Trump admin has made many disparaging comments about the press, called the media the "enemy of the people," we know Trump has privately mused about jailing journalists. Trump has had probably the most hostile relationship with the press since Nixon.

Timm: To me it's very telling that Trump's is the first one to try to bring a case like this since the Nixon administration

Lewis again goes back to Kromberg (US attorney)'s statement saying this is not about journalists, asks Timm why he doesn't include that in his statement

Timm: I was testifying to a specific subset of subjects. But I'm happy to talk about Kromberg's statement if you like

Judge: Mr Lewis is asking a specific question, can you answer?

Lewis rephrases: why wouldn't you put in an opposing assertion from Kromberg?

Timm: I did reference these issues, I didn't explicitly reference that affidavit like I didn't reference other affidavits. I talked about how journalists' behavior is often misleadingly described. I also think Kromberg's statement is inaccurate

The Espionage Act talks about anyone who receives this type of information - criminalizes discussions that may happen between sources and reporters. Eg, I'm very glad Woodword and Bertstein weren't indicted for asking Deep Throat for more information

Talking about grand juries bringing indictments. Timm cites this 2010 report, of 162,000 grand jury investigations, only 11 didn't bring charges: bjs.gov/content/pub/pd…

Lewis: are you saying fed prosecutors are acting in bad faith?

Timm: not for me to comment on internal DOJ rules. I do know prosecutors disagreed vehemently with this decision and dropped off the case because they disagreed

Lewis: but if this was part of a war on journalism, wouldn't that be contrary to their internal rules?

Timm: I think that's a reasonable argument to make and if there was a breach of obligation they should be held accountable

What evidence do you have that they breached obligations?

Timm: I didn't say that they did, I said I'm not an expert, but if they did I'd hope they would be held accountable just as I would for anyone

Defense notifies the judge that the prosecution's hour of questioning is up. Prosecution says it didn't know it had an hour. Judge says they were told that ahead of time.

Lewis: it's wrong for Mr Summers to stand up and object, it unsettles your (judge's) view of things

Judge: you can finish with this witness then but in the future we need to keep to this. Go ahead.

Prosecution: well I'm done

Defense re-examination, establishing Timm passed the legal bar, has been writing about legal issues since he did so in 2011. Focused on press freedom issues, 1st Amendment, privacy, constitutional rights in the US.

When approached for this case, familiar with the indictments? Yes very familiar, we've followed this case closely

Timm again on source protection, it would be incredibly dangerous to criminalize this activity as this indictment would do

Referencing NY Law Review article 'Handcuffing the Press: First Amendment Limitations on the Reach of Criminal Statutes as Applied to the Media' digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewconten…

Talking about alleged attempts between Assange and Manning to crack a password, the point was source anonymity and not attempting to gain more access to more information

Lewis objects, says the government's position is actually that the effort to crack a password was (contrary to defense) to facilitate the acquisition and transmission of classified info. So it's not as the witness has it

Defense asks Timm to characterize the allegations in the terms of First Amendment protections.

Timm: idea that it would've made it more difficult to be discovered by investigators tells me it was about anonymity and not gaining more access to more info

Timm: and as I've said journalists routinely make assurances to sources of anonymity often as the only way to protect them

And protecting your sources is that protected under First Amendment? Long and complicated history on this and jurisdictions have slightly different rules, but in general journalists have always argued that they have a strong right to protect their sources and not reveal in court

Defense: Lewis says you haven't seen the underlying evidence. But have you seen the criminal complaint, the jabber chat?

Timm: yes I've seen quotes and excerpts that the govt has put in its affidavits and indictments

Back to allegation re: publishing names of sources. You've told us the approach of the US court is not to weigh the morality in First Amendment concerns yes?

Correct, and law article mentioned goes into detail on this, encourage the court to look at it in depth

Timm: It would be a radical rewrite of the First Amendment if the government were to go forward with these charges. #AssangeCase

Clarifying that the charges on publication are only about docs that name sources. But there are other charges on the cables that travel more widely? Correct - contrary to what the govt says I think it's an open question as to whether the 3 counts deal only with names

Defense wants Timm to opine on 'obtaining' rather than just publishing. Timm: even if you were to take govt assertions as true on the publishing counts, the obtaining counts deal with the entirety of info Manning gave to Assange, all the thousands of cables

Timm: all of these allegations, again, are activities journalists do on a regular basis

Timm: this is why I pointed out that the governments remarks in the affidavits is not charged with passively receiving information is incorrect - this charge is only about receiving, soliciting/encouraging are other counts.

Timm: I believe this charge is about passively receiving and the government's assertions about this are untrue

Timm: I don't think it's an exaggeration to say this indictment would criminalize investigative journalism. All sorts of news outlets publish stories about secret govt programs that the public deserves to know about

End of Trevor Timm's testimony. #AssangeCase

Administrative discussion now on the timing of defense and prosecution questioning of witnesses, Lewis complaining some witnesses have been "rather prolix"

Done for the day. #AssangeCase