@earthling1

I look forward to you keeping us updated. I appreciate all your time and effort spent.

@wendy davis

--if I respond less than I might, it's because this issue really makes me see red. And I don't mean I'm singing the Internationale.

keep you updated; this phase ends friday, next opens may 18, iirc and will likely last three weeks, according to judge cruella baraitser. but OMG! on UK prosecutor lewis's quotes.

no news as to whether or not craig murray was allowed into the wee courtroom on his twit account, but he did indeed travel there.

cross-posting via easy copy html with tweets between here and the café is a pip; i should likely go back there and provide some of these once i finish a few home chores.

anyhoo, thanks for reading and caring, earthling.

@snoopydawg The DNC May Have Paved The Way For Julian Assange’s Acquittal

"....John Koetl, a federal judge, dismissed the lawsuit in July 2019. Whether or not WikiLeaks knew the materials were obtained illegally, they were protected by the First Amendment.

“The First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place,” Koeltl asserted.

Koeltl reference the Pentagon Papers case, acknowledging the Supreme Court held there was a “heavy presumption” against the “constitutional validity of prior restraints” (suppressing) the publication of information.

The DNC alleged that WikiLeaks sent Russian intelligence operatives “using the name Guccifer 2.0 a private message, asking the operatives to ‘send any material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review.’”

“This was not a solicitation to steal documents but a request for material that had been stolen. Journalists are allowed to request documents that have been stolen and to publish those documents,” Koeltl unequivocally stated...."
https://shadowproof.com/2020/02/23/the-dnc-may-have-paved-the-way-for-ju...

A judge ruled in favor of Wikileaks reporting on info that the government wished remained hidden. I have been looking for this case but alas can't find it. But if that were true then how would that not have set a case going forward? And when the democrats tried suing Assange and Wikileaks for telling the world that the 2016 primary was rigged the judge laughed and threw it out.

But then that would rely on him getting a fair trial which we know is not in the works. What we are seeing is kabuki theater just going through the motions of a trial. This also shows that the UN is a toothless organization that country's leaders don't even bother to listen to.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal when Chelsea Manning was prosecuted and when Obama was continuing to keep a Grand Jury investigating wikileaks and Assange empaneled.

are put into when they are fired upon by the U.S. military? What about the danger a soldier is in when she brings knowledge of that crime to the public eye?

Let's not have any more insinuations that the U.S. government cares whether or not it puts people in danger.

@wendy davis to Julian Assange. Yes, he did meet Assange at the Equadorian embassy in the good old days when Julian still had much of his health and a cat. Rohrabacker said he was on a fact-finding mission while he was still in Congress. Maybe QC Woodpecker can offer proof of such an offer. But, more likely, we will have to rely upon the usual anonymous sources.

and i'm so glad you're digging up more and talking to one another. i've been awake since 3:30 and my head is more cotton-wooly than usual.

i will say i'd missed that julian' attorneys had made some of their opening arguments, but it was confusing on the twit machine. i'd missed some of QC Lewis Woodpecker's agitprop, too, and we'd heard that Baraitser would be allowing it in:

but hell's kotula! i went to all this bother and RT.com just put up: ‘Day 1 of Assange’s US extradition hearing: What you need to know’, 24 Feb, 2020

However, Lewis also said Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher visited Assange in 2017 and offered him a pardon in exchange for "personal services" to Trump.

Rohrabacher raised the possibility of prosecution, but offered a pardon if Assange would identify the source of the 2016 DNC leaks, which Assange refused to do. This bolsters the defense’s argument that the Trump administration’s prosecution was politically motivated. Trump denies that this offer of a pardon to Assange came from him.

It has previously been reported that Assange offered Rohrabacher "definitive proof" during that meeting that Russia was not WikiLeaks' source for the DNC email leaks. The emails damaged Hillary Clinton in 2016, revealing that her campaign had colluded with the supposedly impartial DNC against fellow Democratic contender Bernie Sanders.'

Lewis also made the case that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing freedom of expression, did not apply in Assange’s case.

Defending Assange, Fitzgerald argued that the request for his extradition was politically motivated and therefore constituted a breach of Article 41 of the 2003 UK-US extradition treaty, which offers exceptions in the case of political offenses.

Fitzgerald argued that Assange would be at high risk of suicide if extradited and would be subjected to "inhuman and degrading treatment" in a US prison. The consequences of extradition could be "fatal," he said.

To bolster the argument against extradition (which could result in a life sentence for Assange), Fitzgerald referred to former US President Barack Obama's decision to commute the sentence of fellow whistleblower Chelsea Manning and a 2013 decision not to prosecute Assange, made on the grounds that the US would also need to prosecute every newspaper that reported his revelations.