Day 6 of the #Assange extradition hearing begins.

I will be posting live updates in the thread below:
Eric Lewis of @reprieve returns to continue his testimony after court was adjourned due to technical difficulties.
Regarding Babar Ahmad, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg rejected his appeal in 2012, allowing him to be extradited from UK to US.

Prosecution is using this to say that solitary confinement would not pose a grave threat to Julian and shouldn't impede extradition.
Lewis: #Assange will most likely be sent away to ADX Florence, a federal super-max described as "much worse than death" by former warden Robert Hood.

Prosecution says they don't know where Assange will go; Lewis does not share their sentiment

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…
Lewis: prison system hasn't done enough to protect detainees from risks of COVID

Prosecution: have you visited any prisons since pandemic began?

Lewis: no but I have latest stats: 12% of all prisoners in US have COVID

Pros gets pissy, alleges Lewis is giving incomplete picture
Lewis: #Assange may face 175 years in prison

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: no

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.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Richard Medhurst

Richard Medhurst 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!


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 @richimedhurst

14 Oct
"Heavy clashes in Beirut" is a weird way of saying that Hezbollah and Amal protestors were shot at by snipers.
People went out today to protest peacefully against a judge involved in the investigation of the Beirut port explosion. Snipers began firing at the protestors with clear intent to kill, not disperse, as the casualties have head wounds. 3 dead, 20 wounded as of now.
Amal movement + Hezbollah have released an official statement condemning the attack, asking people not to retaliate, in order to avoid escalation. For there are some who would surely favor that and like to plunge Lebanon into chaos...
Read 8 tweets
24 Sep
Pay attention.

Omar, Presley etc voted ‘no’ to fund Iron Dome, while AOC switched from ‘no’ to ‘present’.

In July they did the exact opposite: Omar, Presley etc voted yes to give israel unconditional aid, while AOC, Tlaib voted ‘no’.

See what’s going on here? This is a game.
Why would they vote to give israel arms in July and then vote against the Iron Dome in September?

Because in July the bill barely passed with 217 votes. AOC could afford to vote no and keep up the act, while Omar, Presley, Bowman gave the needed votes to make sure it passes.
Yesterday it was a slam dunk with 420 yes votes. No way it was going to fail so Omar, Presley etc were able to vote no, knowing it won’t affect the bill’s passage. AOC is such a coward she couldn’t even vote no, and switched to present instead.
Read 8 tweets
23 Sep
AOC cries crocodile tears on the House floor as she votes 'No' to funding israel's Iron Dome -- then switches her vote to 'Present' at the last minute. Absolute cowardice. Will no one take a stand for Palestinians?

This is AOC pretending to give a shit about Palestinians and stay on-brand -- while not really standing in the way of Western and israeli interests. She wants a long career in DC and has strong ambitions, and as everyone knows, you can't say no to israel.
House overwhelmingly approving funding for Iron Dome 420-9

Tlaib, Carson, Omar, Massie, Newman, Pressley, Garcia, Grijalva, Bush all voted no.

AOC is the only present vote along with Hank Johnson
Read 10 tweets
21 Sep
Finally progressives do something good: using their leverage as a bloc to cut money to israel — well done. This is how you do it.
Bowman says Pelosi introduced the Iron Dome money at last minute. Likely to try and get Republican support. Apparently didn’t work b/c they don’t want to raise debt ceiling. Now Reps are calling progressives anti-Semitic— even though they were going to vote no as well (??) lol
“But the iron dome is only defensive!!”. That’s funny. So the Israelis illegally occupy Palestine and Syria, but because the Iron Dome shoots down other rockets it’s now defensive? Lmao. An occupying force is an aggressor by definition, and ID supports their illegal occupation.
Read 7 tweets
2 Sep
Israel bombing Syria right now
I’ve lost count already how many times they have bombed Syria this year, never mind the last ten years. Israelis themselves admit its in the hundreds
Syrian air defense batteries are engaging the israeli warplanes over Damascus
Read 6 tweets
1 Sep
Why do Democrats keep saying they're "leaving their allies behind". Is Dick Cheney in Kabul?
The newly McCarthyite wing of the US regime in unison with neocons. Ah, what a sight.
When Trump "withdrew" from Syria (he didn't, he just moved US forces to the East to steal oil) Dems not only ignored this but advocated a continued occupation of northern Syria with: the US mustn't leave its Kurdish allies. But the US will do this ultimately, that's its nature.
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!