Prosecution claims ADX Florence has improved in terms of mental health facilities and treatment, citing the Cunningham v. Federal Bureau of Prisons settlement from 2016.
Lewis: improved in some ways, gotten worse in others
Prosecution: that's just a soundbite from the defense team
Lewis: no, I can explain why
Prosecution: no need
Defense asks judge for Lewis to be allowed to answer question.
Prosecution alleges it's not likely that #Assange will receive the max sentence, citing AUSA Kromberg and Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
(Are people supposed to be delighted about these prospects? Even 1/4 of that is still 44 years in jail, akin to a life sentence)
Lewis indicates Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Prosecution, in response brings up case of Jeffrey Sterling who faced 130 years in prison for leaking classified docs but was ultimately handed a sentence of just 42 months.
(Since they were talking about Babar Ahmad earlier, wouldn't it be smart if the defense or Lewis brought up the fact Ahmad only served 12 months in the US after Judge "credited" him for time already held in jail? #Assange has been in confined for years in embassy + Belmarsh)
Prosecution brings up another example of Terry Albury only receiving 49 months in prison.
All the above would be great .... except for the fact that Julian Assange
1) Is not American 2) Does not work for the US government 3) Did not commit a fucking crime
Prosecution alleges that sentencing handed out to US gov officials who leaked classified info was "lenient".
Something tells me that a transatlantic kidnapping mission and threatening a journo who is not American and does not work for US with 175 years is not exactly lenient.
They're on recess. I swear this kangaroo court is such an abomination.
On the issue of the First Amendment, prosecution asks Lewis if constitution supersedes all else, Lewis answers yes: no publisher has ever been prosecuted for publishing classified docs.
Prosecution to Lewis: in USA vs Steven Rosen, judge concluded Espionage Act was not "unconstitutionally vague" even though charges dropped.
(I think that might have more to do with the fact they were spying for AIPAC and israel gets away with murder– literally).
Prosecution and Lewis going back on forth on whether First Amendment comes before national security interests. Prosecution asserts the two must be balanced i.e. in some cases nat sec > free speech.
Seems the prosecution can't make their mind up half the time whether Julian #Assange is a journalist, whether he has first amendment rights or whether he is both a journalist and has first amendment rights, but it doesn't matter because allegedly national security comes first.
Lewis responds to the prosecution that the Pentagon Papers was the landmark 'balancing act' between first amendment and national security interests.
Prosecution argues that third parties who help a source access and leak classified info aren't protected and that the Supreme Court has never precluded itself from prosecuting journalists.
Prosecution asking Lewis what makes him an authority on political science and if he's ever published any peer reviewed articles. (What does this have to do with #Assange? lol).
Referring to Mark Feldstein's testimony from Day 1, prosecution asks Lewis: do you agree with Feldstein that the Obama never made a decision to prosecute (as opposed to "made a calculated decision not to prosecute".
Lewis asserts this comes down to a misunderstanding of how the DOJ and prosecution works.
Prosecution implicitly tries to discredit Lewis by asking him if he has direct knowledge of what went on in the Obama administration or conversations with federal prosecutors.
Lewis asserts that it is a top-down bureaucracy and decision to prosecute is directed to them.
Prosecution to Lewis: are DOJ and AUSAs acting in bad faith and not following guidelines?
Lewis: Jeff Sessions essentially pressured EDVA to bring the case against Assange
Translation of the above: it's a political witch hunt, prosecutors were specifically directed to go after Assange.
Prosecution to Lewis: "conjecture"
Lewis points to Trump's ever-changing views on WikiLeaks, underscoring political nature of the prosecution (nothing based on new evidence).
Prosecution finishes cross-examining Lewis.
Fitzgerald of the defense rises to question Lewis.
Fitzgerald asks Lewis about Obama's decision not to prosecute #Assange.
Lewis believes that the Obama decision took a specific decision not to prosecute Assange, as opposed to passively not prosecuting him. This is underscored in a WaPo article, 2013.
Lewis cites a statement from DOJ Spokesman Matthew Miller (from the same article): "The problem the department has always had in investigating Julian #Assange is there is no way to prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being applied to journalists,”
Lewis asserts that it is only under Trump's direction that the DOJ decided to go after #Assange (once again, making the matter political).
Lewis: Trump has openly stated he can do whatever he wants with the Justice Department
Lewis: this opinion was also expressed by Attorney General Barr who views the DOJ (and subsequently AUSAs) as instruments of the president, not independent.
Lewis cites political influence by president on Roger Stone case, firing of George Berman, etc
Lewis: nothing at all has changed since 2011 in regards to #Assange and @wikileaks. No new witnesses, evidence or testimony – only explanation is the change of leadership in DC.
Jeffrey Sterling @S_UnwantedSpy CIA whistle blower's response to the prosecution citing his "light" sentencing as some kind of farcical example of "leniency".
Fitzgerald: if someone is placed under Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) this is akin to being placed in solitary confinement?
Lewis: Yes
This is outlined underneath by the Mandela Rules (Source: UNODC) #Assange#AssangeCase
Lewis asserts that if extradited to the US #Assange could face up to three years alone just in pre-trial detention, similar to Lewis' former client Abu Khattala.
Lewis also goes on to say that the vast majority of prisoners diagnosed with mental health issues receive no treatment whatsoever under SAMs and the prosecution is lying about accommodations being made.
Court resumes from lunch break.
The defense continue their cross-examination of expert witness Eric Lewis.
Lewis: real risk of #Assange receiving 175 years in prison without being convicted on all counts because courts can play with the sentencing guidelines.
Lewis' testimony is over.
The next expert witness to testify in the #Assange hearing is Thomas Durkin. He is a criminal defense attorney, has practiced law for nearly half a century and teaches National Security Law at the Loyala University Chicago
Durkin illustrates the difficulties when dealing with cases involving national security. Attorneys can be prevented in some cases from even discussing material with their own clients due to classified nature of materials and evidence.
Durkin confirms that it is "very likely" #Assange would be convicted of several counts and served a sentence of maybe 30-40 years– effectively a life sentence at his age (49).
Durkin refers to Chelsea Manning's @xychelsea trial. She was handed a 35 year sentence and Assange is likely to get even more than that, as US gov considers him to be a substantially greater threat. (Even though he's a publisher, not source).
Durkin raises a crucial point: a US court will very likely take conduct into account when sentencing, ("aggravation") leading to harsher sentence.
Conduct refers to the new allegations (not charges!) DOJ added to indictment, accusing #Assange of working with hackers, etc.
On Day 1 of the #Assange hearing resuming last week, Judge Baraitser refused to throw out the conduct without further consideration.
Keep in mind, US submitted indictment past deadline and Julian was only given new warrant to look at the day of hearing.
Durkin raises another important point, #Assange could be coerced and bullied by the US government into pleading guilty in exchange for leniency (due to astronomical emotional, financial toll of going to trial).
Responding to Fitzgerald of the defense, Durkin asserts that the defendant could indeed by coerced by US government into revealing sources and other critical information in order to receive leniency, in context of a plea deal.
Durkin in so many words agrees the prosecution against #Assange is essentially a political witch hunt by Trump regime.
Fitzgerald: can a grand jury act as a safeguard against ill-intent of a politically motivated prosecutor?
Durkin: not really, unheard of grand jury not to return an indictment and there is no appeal system.
Prosecution will now cross-examine Durkin
James Lewis QC asks Durkin if he thinks #Assange will flat out be denied a fair trial if extradited to the US, or that it would be difficult to obtain one?
Durkin: he will not get what I believe to be a fair trial
Lewis tries to paint the inability to view classified info a simple "inconvenience".
Durkin: it's not just an inconvenience. Attorney is not allowed to even discuss it with the defendant. I don't think AUSA Kromberg would declassify anything or provide access to #Assange
UK Foreign Minister tweets about standing with those who tell the truth while Assange is literally twenty mins away from White Hall being tried in a kangaroo court for journalism. You can't make this up.
Durkin adds that pre-trial preparations would be made considerably difficult given the fact there is a lot of classified information involved in the case, #Assange would be detained, and would be very costly.
Durkin's opinion is that Obama and Holder specifically declined to prosecute Assange. Trump only reopened the issue and pursued an indictment for political reasons. #Assange wasn't indicted by grand jury but rather by DOJ.
Defense goes back to cross-examining Durkin. Fitzgerald brings up 2013 WaPo article and DOJ statement not to go after Assange because it would've meant going after other journos too.
Durkin says leaks at the time are reliable. If they wanted to get #Assange they would've
Durkin finishes testimony and court is adjourned for today. Will resume tomorrow at 10am local time.
Police: you have the right to tell someone you've been arrested
Me: yes, I'd like to do that
Police: Due to the nature of the alleged offense your calls are withheld
Me: but you just said I have the right to inform someone
Police: the right can be waived
Lol. Basically "shut your mouth, you have no rights". This is what their idea of "'counterterrorism" means and what laws like this lead to.
Another great exchange:
Police: you have the right to know why you've been arrested
Me: yes, can you please tell me why. What is section 12 and what "prescribed orgs"? What is being alleged?
Police: we're just the arresting officers / you'll be told when you're questioned
Imagine you're taken off a plane for fucking "terrorism" and this is all the info you're left to go off of lol.
Go sit in the urine-smelling cell in solitary, where we film and record you sleeping, eating, peeing. And wait around for 15 hours until we decide to enlighten you with what it is we claim you've done wrong.
Schools could indeed lose their status as protected civilian objects if used for military purposes— but the civilians inside do not. You cannot justify murdering over 100 people in order to kill 19, who are not even in Hamas. The israelis just publish random photos and names:
Yes, precisely. A ceasefire is just the first step. Then the settlers must return to their countries and hand over the land. All of it. We will accept nothing less. The fact that a ceasefire is so controversial and difficult for the West shows they are hell-bent on murder.
No Arabs were involved in the negotiation of a Partition Plan for Palestine. It was imposed. Then when the Palestinians signed Oslo, they got stabbed in the back and Israel said "no two state solution". Fine, but that goes both ways. When you annul a contract the other party is also released from it.
The same judge from Assange's High Court hearings, Johnson, is the one that issued Tommy Robinson an arrest warrant— which only comes into effect in October, despite him being detained under the terrorism act and fleeing the country on the eve of his court date.
Can you imagine Assange being given special treatment like that? A delayed arrest warrant? Bail? House arrest? Being allowed to leave the UK?
Assange, despite his failing health, was shown no mercy by any of the judges regarding bail or house arrest at any stage of court proceedings. The preferential treatment here is very clear, and baffling, given Robinson has helped promote racism and encouraged riots in England.
The charge is contempt of court, but he was indeed arrested, albeit briefly, under the terrorism act.
Regardless, Robinson left the country right before court. Compare that to how Assange was persecuted for seeking political asylum, which is a human right, and then given a maximum sentence for a bail infraction.
INVESTIGATION🧵: Israeli Olympic athletes are IDF soldiers. Many have called for genocide in Gaza, or expressed support for the IDF.
This violates the Olympic Charter which states that sports and politics cannot mix.
The evidence is staggering⬇️
Peter Paltchik, the Israeli flag bearer at the Paris Olympics, signed bombs that were about to be dropped on Gaza: “From me to you with pleasure.”
Paltchik, a judoka, is seen here confronting pro-Palestine protestors in Japan. A member of his entourage threatens to kill one of the activists after he lightly touched Paltchik.