Extradition September hearings Day 9 (Day 11 incl the Covid days)

On the video link to the Old Bailey.

Beginning of another important week.
Legal team taking their seats
Judge has started speaking but we have no sound
Sound up
Perhaps they have yet to bring JA up
Professor Christian Grothoff first witness via video
Prof of computer science, network security & cryptography
CG: I looked at the release of classified material that was not redacted, which I found on the internet. Material available to anyone who looked.
CG: David Leigh wrote in his book that he had the password to the encrypted files
CG: the file accessible to Leigh was encrypted. - inaccessible to anyone without the encryption key, which he included.
CG: using a key to share encrypted files is common practice
Once a file has been produced with an encryption key, it is not possible to change that key.
From November 2010 the media par5ners were publishing cables in redacted form
In Nov the Wikileaks site was under attack - a denial of service attack
The day after the redacted cables started being published, the attack took the form of an overwhelming request to the site
DNS server decided to terminate the service because the attack was affecting its other customers
Wikileaks encouraged people to put up mirrors (needs to explain...)
A mirror is another copy of the site. This is done frequently
The archive machine date... was around the time of the attack
The Archived page shows lots of mirrors all over the world
Showing lots of people copying the site
CG: Wikileaks posted instructions on how to mirror the site
This DID NOT as far as I know, enable people to access the encrypted files
Some of those mirrors created the unredacted cables but they were encrypted so not accessible
For that file, the password Leigh had would unlock it.
In Feb Leigh published the password than enabled decryption.
Wikileaks is not able to take those files down because those mirrors are not in Wikileaks control
Nor can they change the password. Nothing they can do.
Till 25 August, no one puts all this together until Die Freitag published that the Leigh book password would give access to encrypted files on the mirror sites
Nigel Parry (?) managed to access the encrypted files, then Cryptome, then others.
Summers asks CG to clarify Wikileaks had issued instructions on how to mirror the site but there were mirrors that had not followed those instructions. CG continues the list to find other sites who managed to access the deencrypted files & the Us govt also accessed the files via
One of these sites that had mirrors
Cryptome is US based
The materials are still available on Cryptome & other sites
CG: first I found that Wikileaks made this information available was 2 Sept 2011. Bu that time the material was already available on the internet & cannot be stoped, like pirated movies can’t be taken back.
Prosecutor (Smith I believe) btw Smith is extremely polite...:
When were you first instructed to be a witness? CG: around 8 Feb
Smith: you were given a statement from Cryptome by the Defence
CG: they also gave me the article from Die Freitag.
Summers asking him about all the docs sent to him by the Defence & did he rely on those docs.
CG says Die Freitag is important & that article is still available
Smith, not Summers, above
Smith: can you think of anything that might show you are not impartial here?
CG: JA published info about war crimes which makes him a sympathetic character but I did look for material that would contradict Wikileaks
Smith: you signed a letter to POTUS calling for the prosecution to be dropped
CG: I read letters carefully, if they are reasonable I sign,
SMith: “a step into the darkness”?
CG: it is a bad step for press freedom
Smith: you say it’s unfair so you are biased
CG: no you are confusing W efforts to conceal the encrypted files & you did not do your homework to find out who published the cables first.
CG: W were well known as being responsible publishers
CG: I believe publishing information about war crimes, with proper redactions, is journalism. My opinion was & is that W are responsible publishers.. no I don’t think signing that letter makes me not neutral in my investigation
Smith: so you forgot you signed the letter
CG: yes
Smith: did you download the Iraq files?
CG: Yes, from Cryptome
Smith: was the encrypted file on the W website?
CG: explaining interference by Domsheit- Berg which may have resulted in some mirrors containing the encrypted cables
CG: the weakest link is human.
Smith: the more people you give the password to they can duplicitously, maliciously, pass it on
CG: as Leigh did.
Smith: going to the prosecution bundle CG has no prob getting it up
Smith: the unredacted cables were being worked on by 50 human rights orgs, so 50 media & HR orgs
CG: IN PARTS they didn’t all have access to everything
Smith: Smith rephrases the question because CG has forced him to hone it
CH: only Mr Leigh’s action resulted in the publication
CG: JA was tight in his reluctance to give him the password
JA was right in his reluctance to give him the password
Smith asking CG when Wikileaks would have been aware the password was in the book
CG: I don’t know but if they knew, they were perhaps trying to keep it quiet
Smith: looking at a shot of the W website taken in Dec, we can see they are encouraging others to go to mirrors to access the site.
CG: this is W creating a haystack, to obscure mirrors that excluded the encrypted file.
Smith: you assert this was a deliberate attempt to create a haystack but we don’t have the password issue yet
CH: they continued this after the password was published
Smith asking about specific cables released between 23-30 Aug, CG saying they would have been unclassified
Smith : did they contain names?
CG: I didn’t look at content, just classification
Smith: these cables were then released in searchable form
CG: what’s that got to do with it
Smith: so W emphasises when it releases cables in searchable form and Die Freitag doesn’t mentioned mirrors
CG: anytime you copy a file on the web, you mirror it. It’s technically called mirroring.
Smith: they don’t publish the password
CG: they hunt it is public
They say it is public
CG: W Disputed the Die Freitag story
Smith quoting W tweets cables are still being released & W making use of mirrors to do it, tweeting “including secret”
CG: you have to include those cables releases by media partners which include classified docs
Smith: who told you they were experts in deciding
CG: they are experts in journalism - a common presupposition
Smith: do you know who all the media partners given the cables are?
CG: no
Smith: quoting more W tweets announcing searchable form using mirrors. Since 30 Aug, we’re there names in cables labelled strictly protect?
CG: yes but some media partners made a different decision eg in Sweden
CG: Since the US govt did not go to the trouble of protecting these people’s names from tap large number of people who had access, you conclude it could not have been that important
CG: I did not find anything before 31 Aug
Smith: “Complete unredacted cables from Wikileaks” tweet by a third party
Smith asks CG to find a tweet about the unredacted cables on a mirror site. Break for 15 mins for him to find this tweet!
JA conferring with Gareth. CG finds it! “How do I transmit it?” No one can answer that. The judge is out of the room.
This witness knows his stuff. And again, Prosecutor Smith trying very hard to prove W were irresponsible, somehow.
Waiting for the judge
Much discussion in the room.. “ How long is it?” “Can you print it out?” “ Find someone who has decent handwriting”...
Judge back
Smith: dated 1sept at xx
CG: a different time zone. You have to take into account the time zone
CG: you can argue it was Sept 1st
Smith: I’ve got 5.58 & though have 7.58
Smith: go to Nigel Parry’s blog - the source material you site for Cryptome
CG: he has a Twitter account
Smith: Parry writes about his efforts to decrypt the password
Smith: parry says he discovered the password & tweets “its a bad day for David Leigh” & tweets where to find the password, he contacted W & they “sprang into action”. Parry hadn’t published the password. Where in Parry’s blog does it say Cryptome is publishing the password
CG: quotes Parry with the information Smith is referring to
This convoluted exchange is to establish the exact time of tweets,but of course it depends on your time zone. Summers objects saying Smith has made an error
So 10pm 31st somewhere is the already the 1st somewhere else ( ugggh)
Smith: now asking about another tweet by a third party to try to agree on timing.
Smith: Wikileaks tweet cited the paragraph from the book (sans password), after Parry tweeted it.
Smith: W tweet calls a global vote on whether they should release all the cables, on 31 Aug
Smith: On 1 Sept : the W poll continues, but the decision is taken to publish, on 2 Spt
W server was struggling to cope with the number of people looking at unredacted cables.. had a significant global reach.
Smith: “Help is purchase more capacity” tweet
CG: both Cryptome & XX published first & that is what is important.
Smith: W boasting of their “searchable” format
Smith: quoting Independent saying the W publication was more comprehensive & visible - do you agree?
CG: no not more comprehensive
10 mins break before Summers re examines
At judge’s suggestion, which was a good one as they could take the opportunity to confer.
Shot of JA on the split screen. CG smiles.
Summers: Leigh was one of the partners reviewing the material for redactions. Was anyone else of those media partners given the password?
CG: no & he was given it reluctantly after repeatedly trying t9 tease it out.
Smith: quotes Leigh telling JA he could be in an orange suit
Headed for Guantanamo Bay before he published the cables.
Summers: the material was on a temporary website, with a sword to encrypted data.. is that common?
CG: yes, some of the files for this court case is in encrypted files, banks encrypt some transactions.
Encrypted information is useless to the public
Before Leigh published the password, the encrypted information was private.
Summers: on mirrors... W encouraged others to mirror its site, a list of mirror W facilitated or encouraged
CG: they did not contain the encrypted file, unless W instructions were not followed.
CG: the mirrors that contained the encrypted file used an different software, so these did not follow W instructions.
Summers: relevance of hidden directories if you are mirroring a website, is it possible to pick up encrypted files?
CG: it depends... (fast explanation)
Summers now asking him how to tell whether there were unclassified cables among them.
CG: I looked at a sample but the number correlates to the number of unclassified cables
CG: unclassified cables are not marked Secret or Protect
Summers: would a name be included of someone who would be at risk?
CG: don’t expect that but I don’t know how US goes about things
Summers: challenging Smiths chronology : after the Die Freitag article on 25th, what was W saying on their Twitter feed.
CG: they said it was false & some parts may have been false but not the critical part
CG: following the Der Spiegel article, people put two and two together & told people what to look for
Summers: on 21st, Parry tweeted the location of the password
Judge interrupts him she doesn’t want to hear the chronology again & Summers says Smith got the chronology wrong
Summers: Smith suggested W tweet led to location of password.
Summers: on 31 Aug Cryptome has published the password, on 1st published the file;
Pirate Bay & NIVA also published
Summers: the Prosecution haven’t produced evidence for the material they are quoting from in their bundle
Smith stands to make the point that W was responsible for thru their tweets & editorial & reach
Summers: re the open letter - were you aware of any of the other signatures? This was something Smith asked too.
Summers: were you aware there were members of the German parliament, former US Army, FBI, judges, human rights activists.
CG: I don’t recall, it was years ago
Summers: The next witness who was scheduled for this morning was available til 1pm & is now on his way to the airport. The other witness for this afternoon may not need to appear because his evidence is not being disputed.
Judge wants a timetable. Summers says the next tranche of witnesses are medical.
Lewis suggesting written closing documents with each side have just one session (presumably to talk to their written submissions)
Fitzgerald says we won’t be able to fit it all in in the allocated time frame because of the two days lost due to Covid scare.
Lunch break.
So what is not disputed by the Prosecution, is that W was not first to publish the unredacted cables. The rest is about whether they amplified the unredacted cables.
That included
The Defence will have been trying to line up another witness for this afternoon, after all the very lengthy cross examination discussion about chronology of tweets took up the time allocated for the second witness this morning who is no longer available today.
Glimpse of Julian, wearing a tie, no jacket.
Next witness says Summers is Mr Worthington.
Lewis: he is very like el Masri so they could just read the statement. We had no notice he would be on today so could not prep.
Judge asks what Lewis would challenge about the account.
Lewis: if the statement is going to be considered as allegations, not fact.
Summers: main point is revelation that people were being tortured based on evidence from other prisoners. Detainee assessment briefs revealed.
Judge: are you asking me to make a finding?
Summers: yes I will invite you to recognise the finding that a finding has been made
Judge says she will not, reminds him that Lewis does not accept the international courts findings
Judge is asking if Lewis objects, he says the matter is irrelevant. Judge reiterates they should be coming to agreement on these issues.
Lewis is trying to make her rely on the courts decision without hearing the witness.
Summers: even if you have to make no findings about whether anyone was tortured, it is relevant that info disclosed by WL suggested that.
Judge well that is important. Asks Lewis whether he accepts that. Lewis: we don’t dispute that the cables have been interpreted by some people
To be evidence of torture, but the US does not accept there has been.
Summers: the other issue is who published the materials & in what order. Worthington will state Wikileaks was last to publish, the Telegraph & other media partners published first.
Lewis: we don’t except that
Summers: may I ask him the source of his understanding. The answer is the Senate but I need him to say it because it’s not in his statement.
Judge asks why the Prosec didn’t know Worthington was on today.
Summers because of Covid everything has has to be rescheduled & it’s been difficult to find witnesses for particular sessions. Judge asks for the remaining schedule as they only know the doctors are on over 3 days
Fitzgerald asks if he could have half an hour with JA, there is a possibility Cassandra Fairbanks might come this afternoon.
Judge again asks for a complete schedule
Judge: says we will hear Fairbanks statement after a half hour break but she wants a schedule. Fitzgerald says he needs the half hour to talk to JA & go thru the statement with Lewis to see what he disagrees with.
Convoluted discussion betw the judge & Lewis.Lewis makes the point that the witnesses are repetitive. Judge wants a list of witnesses statements for which there is agreement, quickly.
Lewis says sometimes it’s not possible to see why a witness is being called, they are witnesses
Of opinion, not fact.
Lewis: The number of witnesses is daunting & each one makes complex statements.
Judge wants a list identified so if they need to they will have to go thru each one & state the purpose or purposes for which they have been called, if that helps.
Half hour break
Fitzgerald had a two minute conversation with JA & we just saw JA being led out of the court room
Fitzgerald conferring with Peirce & Robinson
We have all been disconnected ... waiting
I hope we are not missing Cassandra Fairbanks statement
There is a break while they fix the connection
Now we have connection ... court has not yet resumed
Fitzgerald is with JA, Summers asking for the rest of the day to sort things out with the Prosecution.
Judge: will you be done by 4pm?
Summers: there will be some progress.
Judge Breaks till 4.
All the lawyers are back early..
Judge back but we don’t have sound
Fitzgerald: we all agree the statement of CF can be read.
Smith: don’t accept what she says is true, in particular what Schwartz told her, & she is partial.
Fitzgerald: we say her evidence is evidence of declared intention of those at the top so hearsay doesn’t apply.
Fitzgerald summarises the statement: it is an indication of the intention of the US. Judge wants to make sure Press is connected
Smith: the truth of what Arthur Schwartz told her is not within her ability to know is true.
Fitzgerald: Schwartz was an associate of Trump & Grenell.
She reports for a pro Trump site & supports libertarian causes.
She is in a chat group with Schwartz. She shared an article she wrote & Schwartz rang her to threaten her, telling her it would be the Manning case he would be charged with, that the US would be going in to the Emba
Embassy to get him, they will also pursue Manning over this.
She was shaken up & went to visit JA & told him. Later when all Schwartz said transpired I realised everting Schwartz told her was true. She visited JA again & was shocked at how she & JA was being treated at the Embassy.
She then asked Schwartz about something (too fast)
He said he knew she had told Assange, she realised later because they were being spied on. This is going very fast bit the statement will be released & we shall have to read it.
She says Schwartz informed her Grenell organised JA’s removal from the Embassy on orders from the President.
Schwartz told me he knew what I had told JA. The way I was treated at the last Embassy meeting is because they knew what I had told JA at the previous meeting.
Prosec & Defence have agreed she will not be called.
One paragraph will be edited. (So we prob won’t see the statement before that)
Prof Copeland (sp?) on all day tomorrow.
Finished for today
Ok so that is forensic psychiatrist Professor Michael Kopelman

• • •

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

Keep Current with 💧Mary Kostakidis

💧Mary Kostakidis 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 @MaryKostakidis

Nov 2
In contemplating the unfolding war in Ukraine, it helps to recall the lessons of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Small thread on how to start a proxy war and make it a success - famously recommended by Zbigniew Brzezinski
A fervent anti-communist, Jimmy Carter’s National Security advisor hatched a plot to create a ‘Soviet Vietnam’ - to lure the Soviet Union into an unwinnable depleting war. Disparate Afghan war lords - collectively known as the Mujahideen - had been attempting to overthrow
successive regimes sympathetic to the Soviet Union.
There were two important prongs to the strategy for this proxy war between the US and the Soviet Union.
1 - on the ground: the CIA covertly funded, armed and trained the Mujahideen from a base over the border in Pakistan while
Read 14 tweets
Jun 7
Military buildup & AUKUS breast beating has nothing to do with protecting trade with China from China, it’s about the freedom to conduct military & intelligence activity in another country’s Exclusive Economic Zone - something China makes clear is not on arena.org.au/trade-routes-o…
The US “fears that if China’s position were to gain greater international acceptance, it would affect the United States’ ability to project naval and air power in other EEZs such as the Persian Gulf..” (1 of 2)
“That would force it to conduct operations from more than 200 miles offshore, significantly reducing the range of its sensors and missiles. It would be much harder to place its marines and their equipment in an amphibious tactical lodgement”.
Read 8 tweets
Apr 2
I have requested permission to observe 20 April #Assange hearing when the magistrate will issue the order to extradite him to the US. The order will then go to the UK Home Secretary Priti Patel for approval. Assange's defence will make submissions to Patel by May 18th.
They intend to appeal the original decision on the grounds of Press Freedom and Fair Trial.
The last hearing held in a higher court was a farce. Journalists outside London were not informed as to whether there would be a link until last minute, were informed we were approved after the start of the short hearing, during which we managed to merely access a black screen ..
Read 5 tweets
Oct 28, 2021
Day 2 of the US High Court #Assange Extradition Appeal in London.
Today the Defence will counter the arguments presented yesterday, & raise new reports from former US officials that the CIA considered kidnapping or murdering Assange. I’ll be covering proceedings on this thread.
They will also argue that if the Court decides to admit the US assurances & view them as comprehensive, then consideration will need to be given to which tribunal ought to assess their trustworthiness & will propose Baraitser as she has heard days of detailed evidence.
We heard yesterday that JA chose not to attend Court because of increased medication levels but subsequently @StellaMoris1 said that was not the case, that it was not his choice, that he was not permitted to attend, with no further information.
Read 108 tweets
Oct 27, 2021
The US High Court Extradition Appeal in London is scheduled to start in about an hour.
I’ll be monitoring on the videolink - along with other journalists - and will keep you posted on this thread.
The 5 grounds on which the HC has agreed the US can appeal are:

1. That the Extradition judge applied S91 of the Act improperly ie that extradition would Not be Oppressive or Unjust

2. The Judge should have given the US the opportunity to offer assurances
3. The judge ought to have disqualified the key Defence psychiatric expert Prof M. Kopelman because he misled the court by not revealing the identity of JA’s partner in his first report.

4. The judge erred in assessing evidence of suicide risk
Read 118 tweets
Aug 11, 2021
I’ll be following the UK High Court Appeal by the US

in the case of Julian #Assange

and **live tweeting**

Starts at 10.30am London time on 11 August - in just a few hours.

You can follow this thread, and quite a few others!
It appears this Court has allowed other observers besides journalists, unlike Judge Baraitser who barred human rights groups and parliamentarians form the Extradition hearing.
Amnesty International’s rep has been approved as was the Australian Parliamentary Assange supportgroup
This is not the US Appeal per se.
Tonight’s preliminary hearing
is to appeal the two (of 5) grounds on which the US was denied permission to appeal.
Read 20 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!