Thread by @jamesdoleman

Next witness at the Julian #Assange case is Carey Shenkman, a US constitutional lawyer.

Audio isn't great so judge asked Shenkman to disconnect and reconnect.

Shenkman is back, outlines to the court his qualifications, judge says audio still isn't good enough, asks staff to look into the matter to see of the problem is here or at the witnesses end.

Court adjourns until this is resolved

Proceedings resume, Mr Shenkman is now holding his phone to his ear rather than a speakerphone.
#Assange

The witness tells the court the US espionage act, under which #Assange is being charged, was born during "one of the most oppressive periods in US history," during WW1

Shenkman says the act is "extrordinary broad," and "one of the most contentious laws in the United States."
#Assange

Shenkman says that the espionage act could even apply to someone in the UK retweeting something the US government considers classified
Notes there is no public interest defence
#Assange

The witness confirms that no publisher in the US has ever been convicted under the espionage act.
Judge intervenes to remind the witness she has his statement and he does not have to repeat every detail that is in it.
#Assange

Shenkman now going through various historical cases involving the espionage act, such as the Pentagon papers.

The witness says publishing classified material is a daily routine in the US press, and is often encouraged by officials leaking it.
#Assange

Defence ends it's questions, Claire Dobbin, a barrister representing the US government, rises to cross-examine.
#Assange

Dobbin suggests that until 2015 Shenkman worked for a legal firm that represented #Assange and challenges his credentials as an expert witness

The witness says he was on the legal team at one point but was only involved in a "limited way."

Shenkman is asked about an article he wrote that is in the prosecution bundle, he says he has never received it that bundle.
Is asked to check his email as it was sent at 9am UK time.
#Assange

He says he hasn't got it.
Court takes a break so it can be sent again.

We're back, the witness has got the email and is being referred to an article he wrote for The Nation which says he is a "member of Julian Assange's legal team.

He says he says he did not write the byline the prosecution is referring to, and says he would have to qualify that by looking at "the scope of that."

He says his role was providing advice on international law, not representing Assange as a criminal lawyer.

Asked about the opinion he expresses in the article that #Assange is being detained wrongly, he replies "that's my opinion as a human rights lawyer."

Shankman asks what the relevance of this is, and what is providing as evidence is "academic analysis," based on a peer reviewed paper he wrote which is "objective"
"I think that will become clear Mr Shankland," Dobbin replies

He notes that prosecutors often become judges but no-one expresses the view that they are nt able to be fair.
#Assange

Dobbin asks how long he has been a qualified lawyer, he says since 2013, asked, He says he has never represented Wikileaks, he did work for Michael Ratner who was connected with Mr Assange.

The witness says he has a professional obligation not to discuss all of his legal work under the rules of legal privilege.

He said in 2015 that he may have responded to an issue between Google and Wikileaks, but he would have to check.

Dobbin now questioning Shenkman's description of himself as a "constitutional historian,"
#Assange

In response to a question Shenkman says "I cannot speak for Mr Ratner, and, unfortunately,he is not available to ask"
(The court heard earlier Mr Rantner died in 2015)

Shenkman asks Dobbin, "You work in chambers, do you know the details of every view of every other lawyer who works there, especially those who are more senior?"

Adds that compared to Mr Ratner, "I was plankton."

Judge intervenes to ask why prosecution counsel about a US freedom of information case,
Shenkman says he is happy to answer the question.

"We won't get bogged down in that, Dobbin replies."
#Assange

Shenkman to Dobbin "I don't know why you are showing me documents and asking me to confirm what is written on the page, it seems like a waste of time."
#Assange

Dobbin says she is trying to establish that this 2010 freedom of information act judgement shows there was an ongoing legal investigation into wikileaks.
The judge intervenes, "question please.
#Assange

Asked if he agrees Shenkman replies, "I can't testify for the Justice Department."
#Assange

Dobbin asks "If there was no investigation why was Mr Assange in the Embassy

"Questions about Mr Assange's state of mind are a matter for him and his legal team," the witness replies.

Shenkman on the indictment
I've never seen anything like this, I'm truly astonished, it is extraordinary,"

Prosecution, "lets move onto a subject which you say you are an expert in."

Dobbin to Shenkman

"As you have offered an expert opinion about the Espionage Act I'm going to ask you some questions about US law, if they are too difficult for you, tell me."

Dobbin quotes a line from a Supreme Court judgement, Shenkman said he would need to know more about the case.

She replied, "Isn't that a simple statement of principle?"

He replies "Thats what lawyers are paid to do, of it was that simple we would be out of work,"

Dobbin, "I thought I was asking you a straightforward question, it appears I was not"

prosecution asks "Is obtaining unauthorized access to govt databases protected under First Amendment."

Shenkman says courts are arguing over what constitutes "unauthorized' authorized" access. So he can't simply say yes or no and that prosecution choices are political decisions

Dobbin asks if we can adjourn now and resume tomorrow, and asks for more time to question the witness

Judge says "You have approached this relatively slowly, therefore you take the consequences of that, the witness has been helpful."

Court adjouns until 10am tomorrow.

Report to follow