Back at the Julian #Assange case in London, (had a few technical issues but all sorted now)
American Lawyer Corey Shenkman is being cross-examined by Claire Dobbin on behalf of the US Government.
The prosecutor is suggesting that the US espionage act has been "refined" through a series of court judgements.
Shenkman is sticking to his argument that it is too broad.
Assange
The barrister and the lawyer are having a very detailed discussion about legal precedent in which they are referring to documents we don't have, so sorry about the lack of tweets.. #Assange
Shenkman to Dobbin, "I don't want to tell you how to do your job, but you seem to be wasting your time reading out large chunks of text that are already before the court." #Assange
Dobbin to Shenkman, there have been no prosecutions of serious publications under the espionage act.
Shenkman says "no" and mentions a number of cases.
Shenkman points out that the 1st Amendment makes no distinction between "serious publications," and non mainstream ones.
Dobbin, Wikileaks model was to illegally obtain government information either from officials or hackers. #Assange
Dobbin, "He [Assange] encouraged people to join the CIA to obtain classified information.
Shenkman starts to reply, "I'm glad you brought that up because I'm curious about one part of the indictment."
Judge, "I'm not sure if your curiosity is relevant to these proceedings."
Shenkman, "I think I know what your question is going to be."
Judge, "You should wait for the question and not try and guess what its going to be." #Assange
Why did the Sun/News of the world hack William and Harry so much?
A thread.
Royal news and gossip was a staple of their output, but their problem was that, in 2006/2010 the younger members of the family, who the public was most interested wouldn't cooperate, as they blamed the press for Diana's death
Their Royal reporters were also mostly middle aged men in suits, they wouldn't exactly blend in at the London nightspots the young set hung out at
Counsel now going over emails sent to the Mail on Sunday to Harry's solicitors asking if they wanted to "comment or guide," them on their planned article.
Counsel, Harry had only made the offer to pay when the judicial review was already in progress.
Says "That's the basis of what the criticism [in the article] was about
Back at court (by video link) for a motions hearing in the case of Prince Harry v Associated Newspapers.
Not sure what I'll be able to report, but will let you all know what I can.