Assange trial live:

-

Assange's lawyers have argued today that the CIA plotted to kill Julian Assange, and that he cannot be safely extradited to a country that planned his kidnapping/ assassintion.

Fresh evidence shows options were presented directly to President Trump over killing Assange after Vault-7 leaks.

(Defense for Assange is establising that entire US government was/is hostile to Assange and cannot therefore guarantee a safe trial. They are appealing the scope of previous findings ruled on by the court)

Assange trial live:

cont.

Defense has raised point that document U.S. is relying on for extradition contains clause forbidding extradition of political prisoners. Argues U.S. cannot simultaneously want to extradite because of political embarrassment while ignoring that section of the treaty.

Also raised was fact that Wikileaks was not the first or only outlet to recieve said classified documents from Manning, but the prosecution has been selective (targeting Assange) with no explanation for this behavior.

(note* for posterity. This is not entirely correct as the charges actually revolve around an unidentified WL rep offering to help Manning obtain more But there is no way for positive identification of Assange possible as that rep. so it is a nonsequitor, legally speaking.)

Assange trial live:

Court breaks for lunch, will resume 2pm london time.

-

Note this is the first day of a two day hearing.

So at the end of this, it continues.

After that, the judges will deliberate likely for several weeks.

The outrageous part of the UK's years-long "trial" to condemn Julian Assange to die in an American dungeon is that the victim of his "crime" (journalism) is a state rather than a person—the definition of a political offense, which the US-UK extradition treaty explicitly forbids.

I want to break from Assange case coverage to explain some things about Julian's situation:

The legal arguments matter a great deal here. But more importantly, the eyes of the world are trained upon the small coutroom in the UK.

It is much more difficult for nefarious entities to flout the protocols of justice, when the world is watching.

This move is also not our last card.

The ECHR will be the next step, should the ruling be disfavourable toward Julian.

This means petitioning the European Court of Human Rights to step in.

It remains to be seen however, if Julian would not just be whisked away immediately by the U.S. Or if the UK courts will recognize the authority of the ECHR (British law was adapted recently in their bid for "autonomy" and the sovereignty of the ECHR is murky at best).

If* it comes to extradition. By virtue of a rather clever plan I had the honor of helping devise; we were able to secure some of the best legal representation in the U.S. for him, Barry J. Pollack, one of the greatest trial lawyers in the U.S. (he infamously obtained the aquittal of one of only 2 people acquitted in the Enron case. He also managed to overturn a double murder trial against a man convicted and wrongly imprisoned for 17 years).

In short, we are prepared, as much as can be. Assange has a rock solid legal defense, and a system of global support around him.

But* There are dangers to this still. Assange is not well, he has not been for some time. He suffered a mini-stroke last October, and recovery has been slow. Also, decades of isolation have had an effect on his well being in general. By incriment and measure, he has suffered from depression and had issues with auditory hallucinations and other things. He has more than once threatened suicide rather than be extradited to the U.S. to face the bulwark of a visciously unfair and brutal prison and justice system.

Both his wife, and friends fear for his life should this case go awry.

Assange needs to be free.

Even the best defense and the greatest system of support here is not without very real risks.

Keep your eyes on this case, and be loud across the internet. Push your representatives to be loud as well.

I helped stir this storm up to protect his life, and we must not let that fail.

At risk here is much more than just Julian's life. Your press freedom, your right to speak freely, and most importantly your right to know the crimes of your own government are all on trial here.

Assange trial live:

cont.

Defense is raising an Article 7 ECHR/ 5th Ammendment argument, stating that multiple forms of classified material have been published and gone unprosecuted, stating there is no precedent in U.S. law for the prosection of journalists.

They are arguing that the previous judge refused to engage that line of legal argument stating it should be resolved in U.S. courts because it is a 5th ammendment issue (due process).

Defense argues that because Article 7 of the ECHR applies, the judge should have had to engage it and acknowledge its legal standing.

(defense for Assange is once more appealing the previous court actions and errors here).

Section 7 of the ECHR protects someone from being prosecuted for future crime. In other words retroactively making something illegal in order to prosecute them.

Sec 7 of ECHR: "No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed."

Assange trial live:

cont.

Defense now raises article 10 of the ECHR saying that Manning's actions in leaking information fall under the protection of freedom of speech and expression.

Article 10 of the ECHR protects whistleblowers if documents are authentic and it is well within the public interest to know.

It protects both their right to recieve and send such information; including in cases of classified documents if, like in Manning's case; said documents were improperly classified to cover up war crimes.

This pertains to the charge against Julian for allegedly (again, unprovably) offering to help Manning procure the documents if needed.

If in fact the documents were improperly classified and covering up war crimes (they were); then Manning as a whistleblower falls under that protection of the ECHR and by extension, the journalist helping break that story in public interest.

This is weighty legally because according to multiple reviews, no one was directly harmed by the release of said information.