We published a sketch "Assange in Court" written on his blog after British writer and human rights activist Craig Murray attended the Assange trial at Westminster District Court on October 21. In March this year, we reported on the two hearings recorded by Craig Murray respective

text/translated by Craig Murray/Zhang Jiale, Gong Siliang

Editor's note: Recently, Assange's new hearing is being held in the UK Central Criminal Court on Old Bailey Street, London. In addition to being a hacker, Assange is also an Australian journalist. The torture he suffered for the release of confidential materials from the US government involving major public interests in WikiLeaks . It seems that he is sending a signal to journalists around the world in an attempt to strengthen self-censorship. We published a sketch "Assange in Court" written on his blog after British writer and human rights activist Craig Murray attended the Assange trial at Westminster District Court on October 21. In March this year, we reported on the two hearings recorded by Craig Murray under the title "Sketch Assange Extradition Hearing | Your Auditors (I), (II), (II), (IV). Due to the impact of the epidemic, the hearing was originally scheduled to be held on May 18 and was postponed to September 7. Craig Murray attended the latest hearing and recorded it on his blog every day as promised, bringing readers the shocking trial scene that day. Craig Murray served as the British ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004, and then discovered that the secret support of Western human rights violations in other countries led to conflict with his superiors in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since then, he began his career as a human rights activist. Murray was also Assange's friend, shocked and indignant by everything that Assange encountered and the blatant injustice of the legal process. He wrote at the end of each diary: "I hope everyone will actively participate in the dissemination and publication of this article, including translation. The truth will make us free." "The Paper·Thought Market" will successively translate and publish Murray's live records for the benefit of Chinese readers.

September 7, 2020, London, UK, a hearing on the extradition of the United States by WikiLeaks founder Assange continued in London.

Hearing Day 10 (September 16)

Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 10

On Tuesday, the U.S. government made it clear that under the 1917 Counter-espionage Act, all journalists who publish confidential information should be prosecuted and cited Rosen's case. U.S. government lawyers also argued that the famous Pentagon Papers case - the Supreme Court 's judgment on " New York Times " only involves a pre-publication injunction and does not explicitly rule out the possibility of public prosecution under the Counter-Espionage Act. The U.S. government even speculated in court that it would be possible to initiate a prosecution against the New York Times under the Espionage Act.

I have a hard time conveying to British readers the damage caused by the Trump administration to Americans’ political culture and self-image. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution spans political divisions, and the New York Times verdict is seen as a pillar of freedom. So much so that Hollywood's main superstars are still making blockbusters with this theme, with the hero in which the film is journalist, not the real whistleblower Dan Ellsberg (I'm proud to know him).

The US government now clearly stated in court that those journalists can and should be imprisoned in prisons , and that is what we will take in the future. The Washington Post, the New York Times, and all the "great free media" in the United States have not heard of this in court or reported it because they are actively participating in the action of "making the other" of Julian Assange to a non-human being able to ignore his fate. Are they really stupid enough to know that they are the next target?

Uh, yes.

The prosecutors' position is very different from their previous claims that Julian Assange was not a journalist and tried to distinguish his actions from those of newspapers. In the first three days of evidence statements, legal experts say that such a misinterpreted prosecution cannot withstand investigations into actual allegations in the indictment. News experts also confirmed that Assange's relationship with Manning is not substantial different from cultivating and encouraging journalists from other official sources to leak information.

It is generally believed that the days of initially providing evidence are very difficult for the prosecutors. The prosecutor's team was suspended due to suspected COVID-19 cases (Hmm). Now the practice has changed; on Tuesday, the prosecutors took a radical approach, advocating that the government has the right to prosecute all journalists and media publishing confidential information under the 1917 Espionage Act.

The purpose of the early practice is obvious, hoping to reduce media support by distinguishing Assange from other journalists. It is obvious that such an approach does have a risk of failure, and it would be beneficial to the defense if Assange could prove that he was a journalist. So now we have - "any journalist can be prosecuted for publishing confidential information," the US government's statement. I strongly suspect that they have decided that there is no need to ease the media response, as the media will not notice the hearing anyway.

Now I will continue to elaborate on cross-examination against Eric Lewis. I will not elaborate on both sides’ views in detail in the dialogue like yesterday, but rather explain the key points in the summary.

James Lewis: Going back to the European Court of Human Rights verdict on Babar Ahmad, you say they found solitary confinement was allowed; but they did not take into account more recent studies, such as Wildeman and Andersen's 2020 study on Denmark . Are you saying that this study will overturn the decision of the European Tribunal for Human Rights?

Eric Lewis: This is impossible. (I hope) If there is a lot of evidence on solitary confinement displayed today before the European Commission on Human Rights, the judgment may be different.

James Lewis: What are the five limitations of their research mentioned by Wildemann and Andersen?

Eric Lewis: This report is not in front of me now.

James Lewis: Why are there no five restrictions mentioned in your report? They say that their methods are strict observations and cannot be used to prove causality.

(In fact, according to the report, a large sample of former prisoners showed that those who had been in solitary confinement had a much higher suicide rate after being incarcerated.)

Eric Lewis: I could have written hundreds of pages about the latest developments in solitary confinement in social science. This is just a report on this topic.

James Lewis: You are just looking for some arguments and ignoring the details that are contrary to yours.

Eric Lewis: There is a lot of data, including from the U.S. Prison Service. You just picked out a warning from a report.

James Lewis: Please give a brief answer. Things have changed due to Cunningham’s mitigation measures. Do you know what that is?

Eric Lewis: Yes.

James Lewis: Why didn't you mention this in your report?

Eric Lewis: Because it doesn't matter. There are some suggestions that have been put forward, but these suggestions have not been implemented in practice.

James Lewis: Gordon Kromberg made a Cunningham mitigation plan for us. In November 2016, when resolving the 8th Amendment claim, people acknowledged that mental health treatment conditions at the Alexandra Detention Center in Colorado, Florence were unsatisfactory and agreed on a large number of measures. Do you agree with Mr. Kromberg’s statement that Cunningham’s mitigation has improved the situation?

Eric Lewis: In some ways, it improves the situation; but in others, it gets worse.

James Lewis then responded to Eric Lewis' written statement about Covid, saying that Gordon Kromberg confirmed that as of September 2, there was no threat of COVID-19 at the Alexandra Detention Center, where Assange will be in pre-trial detention. Eric Lewis retorted that the COVID-19 infection rate in US federal prisons is 18%.

James Lewis asked: You said in the media that the maximum sentence is 340 years, while you are talking about only 175 years now. You're wrong, aren't you? You used 20 years as the base to count, but in fact it should be 10 years.

Eric Lewis: This is a mistake in an interview.

James Lewis: You won’t really believe in the maximum sentence of 175 years, right? This is just a soundbite.

Eric Lewis started to answer, James Lewis interrupted him. Edward Fitzgerald stood up against it, saying that witnesses must be allowed to answer. Barretzer agreed.

Eric Lewis: The U.S. government says this is one of the biggest cases in history. Espionage often leads to long-term imprisonment. Pompeo lists WikiLeaks as a hostile intelligence agency. The government demands a 560-year sentence for Chelsea Manning. I considered these allegations under the official verdict guidelines.

James Lewis: Gordon Kromberg testified that of all federal defendants, only a small number of defendants received the highest penalty. There are unreasonable differences in sentencing for similar crimes. Jeffrey Sterling, a CIA agent, was convicted of selling Iranian secrets to Russia. He may face a maximum sentence of 130 years, but he is only 42 months in prison.

Eric Lewis: The prosecution requires a longer sentence. In fact, this is a very unique case that cannot be compared.

James Lewis: Why not give a realistic estimate, but just provide a summary?

(In fact, James Lewis' classification of the Jeffrey Sterling case is completely biased and not a wise comparison.) Sterling, a rare black CIA official, had a long and fierce dispute with his employer over racial discrimination, and was found guilty of giving information to a U.S. journalist about false plans about Iran to Russia, which is purely indirect evidence. Sterling has not been accused of revealing secrets to Russia. The whole case is very suspicious.

Eric Lewis: I followed the verdict. I gave the statutory maximum sentence I calculated, 175 years; and in my experience, he may be sentenced to the slightest sentence, which I estimate is 20 years. Sterling's sentence was much lower than the verdict, and the judge explained the reasons.

James Lewis has now filed several more cases, pointing out that the maximum sentence for illegal disclosure to the media is 63 months (presumably not including the Chelsea Manning case). Eric Lewis replied that the specific allegations in Assange's indictment involved disclosures to foreign forces, rather than to the media, and providing information that was beneficial to the enemy. Assange's sentence for the charges was much higher.

James Lewis said the verdict was made by an independent lifelong federal judge with the goal of keeping them safe from political influence. People have discussed the issue of under what circumstances the federal judge may be impeached. The judge appointed the Assange case to be handled by Claude Hilton, who has served as judge since 1985. James Lewis questioned whether Eric Lewis believed Claude Hilton's fairness was up for debate, and Eric Lewis replied that Hilton was a well-known judge.

James Lewis asked Eric Lewis if he accepted the U.S. Department of Justice has a sentencing principle specifically to prevent unnecessary prolonged imprisonment. Eric Lewis replied that the United States has the highest proportion of prisoners in the world.

U.S. government legal counsel James Lewis later said he would turn to the First Amendment issue.

James Lewis: You suggest that prosecution be prohibited under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Eric Lewis: Yes, under the Counter-Espionage Act, no publisher has been prosecuted for publishing confidential information.

James Lewis: Are you familiar with the case of Rosen in 2006? This is exactly the same as the charges Assange faces now, Espionage Act 793 (g): Conspiracy to pass confidential information to those who do not have the right to get it. Have you seen this case?

Eric Lewis: I haven't read that case for a long time because the judgment was not continued in the end.

(James Lewistone reads a lengthy summary of Rosen's verdict. I don't have this material in front of me and cannot read it word by word. Therefore, the following are the key points, not the text records.)

James Lewis: It is very clear in the Rosen case that under the Counter-Espionage Act, the recipient, not just the whistleblower, will be prosecuted. The judge pointed out that while the 1917 Espionage Act was criticized for its ambiguity, Congress never felt the need to clarify it. It also noted that many so-called ambiguities have been addressed in various judicial interpretations. It noted that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the First Amendment defense of Morrison's case.

Eric Lewis: Morrison is different. He is a leaker, not a publisher.

James Lewis: Rosen's judgment also pointed out that in the case of clear intent evidence, the ambiguity of the law does not work.

Eric Lewis: When you consider the 100-year-old espionage law and never prosecuted a publisher, then the intention...

James Lewis (interrupted): I want to turn from intention to talking about the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's judgment clearly states that sometimes the government's interests in national security must override the First Amendment.

Eric Lewis: "In the face of imminent danger, it has caused immediate and direct damage to the interests of the United States." This is a very high threshold.

James Lewis: Rosen's judgment also pointed out that the New York Times Pentagon document case is about injunctions rather than prosecutions. "The right to freedom of speech is not absolute."

Eric Lewis: Of course. These arguments are carefully planned. For example, the movement of troop transport ships during wartime; situations with serious and urgent dangers, etc. In the Pentagon documents, Ellsberg, like Assange, was accused of putting U.S. agents in danger. The barrier to overturning the First Amendment is high.

James Lewis: (A judgment was read out, and I think it is still a Rosen judgment, but it is mentioned only in the attached page) He also pointed out that there is no justification for continuous disclosure of secrets that harm the interests of the state. Therefore, journalists can be prosecuted. Did he say that, Mr. Lewis?

Eric Lewis: Yes, but he was wrong.

James Lewis: Do you think the Pentagon document judgment is the most relevant?

Eric Lewis: Yes, but there are other cases and judgments.

James Lewis: A verdict on a careful reading of the Pentagon documents shows that the New York Times may be successfully prosecuted. Three Supreme Court judges made it clear that publishers can be prosecuted under the Espionage Act.

Eric Lewis: They recognize the possibility of prosecution. They didn't say it would succeed.

James Lewis: So your analysis, "cannot sue publishers under the First Amendment" is incorrect.

Eric Lewis gave a lengthy answer, but the sound on the video was already blurred, and for everyone in the hearing seat, the answer became a series of electronic music. The lawyers continued to state that maybe they could hear the answer, but I knew Assange couldn't hear it because I saw him trying to convey it to his lawyers through the bulletproof glass in front of him. Assange had a hard time doing this because he was behind the lawyers; they all turned their backs to him, their eyes staring at the screen.

James Lewis: Please give a judgment to illustrate that a publisher may never be prosecuted for disclosing confidential information?

Eric Lewis gave another lengthy answer, seemingly uttering a long list of cases in one breath and explaining their importance, but I can only hear a few incoherent words. The sound problem finally improved a little.

Eric Lewis: The practice of not prosecuting publishers who publish defense information has never stopped. Information about national defense, diplomacy and national security is leaked to the media every day. The media never gets prosecuted for publishing them.

James Lewis: The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled that journalists are not allowed to be prosecuted for publishing defense information.

Eric Lewis: The Supreme Court has never encountered such a problem. Because no one has ever filed a lawsuit.But there are some closely related cases that can illustrate the answer.

James Lewis: Do you agree that government insiders will be prosecuted if they disclose confidential information?

Eric Lewis: Yes.

James Lewis: Do you agree that journalists cannot help such people violate the law?

Eric Lewis: It is normal news practice to cultivate official sources and encourage them to leak secrets. As you say, Seymour Hersh (a top investigative reporter in the United States. In a series of reports published in 1969, he was the first to disclose the truth about the "Mela Massacre" created by the US military in , Vietnam, and .) will be prosecuted.

James Lewis: Do you agree that journalists can enter White House without authorization?

Eric Lewis: Yes.

James Lewis then began citing comments on White House access and then seemed to give up. He went on to say that he would turn to the discussion on whether this is a political extradition issue.

James Lewis: Do you have an expert certificate in social sciences?

Eric Lewis: I have a degree in Public International Affairs from Woodrow Wilson School of International Relations.

James Lewis: Have you published any peer-reviewed works?

Eric Lewis: No.

James Lewis: In another extradition case, that is, Dempsey case, you think it is based on a political point of view. The British High Court describes your evidence as "pure guess".

Eric Lewis: Yes, that's their point of view. Dempsey was on his way to Syria at the time, and FBI agents approached Dempsey at the airport. He explained to them that he would travel to Syria to work for an anti- Assad organization. Both sides are at peace. But by 2016, policies against Assad changed and Dempsey was charged. My evidence is about policy changes, not political views.

James Lewis turned to the injured Professor Feldstein's expert evidence: Do you agree with him that although the Obama administration did not decide to sue, it also did not decide to give up the prosecution. Do you agree?

Eric Lewis: I think this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the Department of Justice works.

James Lewis: Do you have first-hand knowledge or sources to express your opinions?

Eric Lewis: No.

James Lewis: So your message is just from the newspaper.

Eric Lewis: There are also TV interviews and statements.

James Lewis: Just like Matthew Miller's statement left the Justice Department two years ago in an interview with The Washington Post?

Eric Lewis: Yes, but he has a close relationship with Attorney General Eric Holder .

James Lewis: Do you agree that Gordon Kromberg's decision to prosecute was conducted in accordance with federal guidelines, not political prosecution?

Eric Lewis: Not under William Barr's leadership. The current system is top-down political prosecution.

James Lewis: Are you saying they didn't comply with the rules?

Eric Lewis: Yes. The 2,600 former federal prosecutors who asked Barr to resign and 1,000 former federal prosecutors who protested Roger Stone's commutation of sentence also believed. Judge Gleason also pointed out in his report on his political prosecution decision.

James Lewis: Are you accusing Gordon Kromberg of dishonest?

Eric Lewis: I don't know him. But I do know that there is heavy political pressure on this matter.

Then there was some discussion about the changing relationship between Trump and WikiLeaks over the years, as well as the Secret Information Protection Act, and whether the bill prevented the defense from disclosing information and accepting the defendant's instructions. This will be discussed in more detail with the next witness.

Then Edward Fitzgerald led the witness to conduct another interrogation. He asked Eric Lewis to talk about the TV interview he mentioned when pointing out the political changes in Obama to Trump .Eric Lewis quoted Sarah Sanders as “we did something” and compared it to Obama’s inaction. Eric Holder said they had decided not to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act because he was not acting for foreign forces.

Edward Fitzgerald then asked about the pressure on Virginia's East District attorneys faced by filing the lawsuit. Eric Lewis mentioned Adam Goldman's article in The New York Times. Ten days after the article was published, the Justice Department said it was a top priority for prosecution of Assange.

Lewis explained that William Barr has made it clear that prosecution depends on the political direction. He supports Unitary Executive Theory and believes that all prosecution decisions are made by or on behalf of the president. Barr made it clear in a memorandum that the prosecutor was "just the hands of the president." This is not a theory, this is how the Ministry of Justice works now. Many federal prosecutors have resigned, and many have refused to touch on the prosecution of Assange. "Mr. Kromberg did not, it was his right."

Edward Fitzgerald then specifically stated that James Lewis had questioned his qualifications when asking Eric Lewis to comment on the conditions of the prison. However, in terms of prosecution, U.S. assistant attorney Gordon Kromberg has submitted a large number of comments on prison conditions. Does Mr. Kromberg have the academic qualifications in criminal law required by James Lewis? Eric Lewis replied that he felt he didn't, and he firmly believed that he had much more practical experience with the prison environment than Kromberg. Kromberg's explanation of official policy is undoubtedly correct, but it has nothing to do with the actual situation in the prison.

Regarding solitary confinement, Edward Fitzgerald outlines the United Nations Mandela rules, under which 22 hours or more are held in a cell every day and without any meaningful contact with a person will constitute solitary confinement. Louis replied that the Special Administrative Measures system would definitely violate Mandela's rules.

The next witness is Mr. Thomas Durkin. He is a lawyer who has practiced for 47 years and was allowed to appear in the Supreme Court. From 1973 to 1983, he was an American assistant attorney and has been practicing private practice since then. He taught law at Loyola University and received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Illinois Criminal Lawyers Association. He also attended via video.

Edward Fitzgerald asked Mr. Dulkin about special issues regarding the handling of confidential materials cases. The biggest problem, Dulkin said, is that you can’t discuss confidential leaked materials with your client. You can only view materials on a special computer in a safe place - a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) - and you must prepare your materials there. Assange will not know what his lawyer knows, nor can they ask him what the material is related to or what its meaning is. It was an incredible difficulty when accepting instructions and preparing for a defense.

Edward Fitzgerald asked Durkin if Julian Assange could be sentenced to real life imprisonment. Durkin replied that this is very likely. After browsing the causes of action and the possible applicable extra-proposals, he divided the sentencing for these crimes into 38, 40 or 43 points. This will take the sentence from 235 months to life imprisonment, and there are multiple causes of action that may be subject to successive sentences. Dulkin said he could be sentenced to 30 to 40 years in prison based on his extensive experience in national security trials. The government's position is that Assange deserves more blame than Manning, and they demand a 60-year prison sentence for Chelsea Manning.

Edward Fitzgerald then asked about the impact of the plea bargaining system. Thomas Dulkin replied that early pleas would reduce sentencing scores by 3 points. This could make a few years different for sentences. But more importantly, the prosecution has reduced the liberty to claim guilty in exchange for freedom. This can make a huge difference to the sentence - for example, it may be more than 100 years, or 10 years.This system greatly reduces the freedom of choice and greatly hinders the trial in court. People just dare not take this risk, and most of Dejin's client now accepts plea agreements.

Mr. Dekin agrees with Edward Fitzgerald's suggestion that the condition of Julian Assange's plea agreement may be that he will hand over the name of WikiLeaks' informant.

Edward Fitzgerald asked Dekin whether the Trump administration sued Assange for political decision. Dulkin said that no new criminal justice considerations have led to a change in specific paths, which is likely a political decision.

Edward Fitzgerald asked Dulkin about Gordon Kromberg's assertion that the grand jury was a powerful bastion against political prosecution. Durkin replied that this was not true at all. The grand jury has never actually refused to authorize the prosecution. In the United States, there is only one refusal to authorize prosecution every four or five years.

James Lewis then began cross-examination. He asked Durkin if he said Assange would not receive a fair trial in the United States, or was it difficult? Dulkin replied that Assange would not receive a fair trial in the United States.

Lewis believes that the requirement to view confidential materials in SCIF is just an inconvenience. Dulkin says that there is much more than that, you can’t discuss material with your clients, which largely limits your understanding of it. James Lewis retorted that U.S. assistant attorney Kromberg said in his testimony that Assange himself would be able to see some confidential materials. A confidential device will be used by him to meet with a lawyer. Dulkin said he would not accept this statement, and he had never seen anything like this happen.

Lewis went on to say that Dulkin's statement would be that there would be an unprecedented amount of confidential material disclosed in this lawsuit, but he could not know what it was. He didn't know what he would disclose, nor did he know what he would be like if there were any. Dulkin replied that there are many things you can learn from the massive prosecution and what happened in the Chelsea Manning case. Lewis repeated, Dulkin had no idea what would happen. Assange may plead guilty.

Lewis believes that the British plea agreement system is roughly the same, and the defendant can receive one-third of the commutation of sentence after pleading guilty. Dulkin said the U.S. plea agreement is much more than that. The government can make very high offers on the surface in reducing allegations and causes of action.

Then, Lewis talked about the issue of policy changes between the Obama administration and the Trump administration. He stressed that Durkin's views on this aspect were derived from media reports. Dulkin pointed out that the Washington Post report on November 25, 2013 that Obama did not prosecute quoted several former and current Justice Department employees. The key is that no news of denial or refutation has appeared, and no one has ever refuted it.

Tuesday's hearing ends here. Anyway, I need to correct an article I published yesterday, that is, there are only three reporters in the video library to report on the trial. James Doleman took me to another hidden corner, and there were about 10 journalists in total. It is unforgivable that several major newspapers are still absent, but the news agency is coming, even if they have few subscriptions.

Hearing Day 11 (September 17)

Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 11

Another shocking example of abusing the court proceedings appeared on Wednesday. Prosecutor James Lewis was allowed to rudely ask the two previous witnesses to continue testifying (they have no connection to the remarks he made), and Lewis read an excerpt from the books by Luke Harding and David Leigh, in which Harding claimed that Assange had said at a dinner party at the El Moro Hotel that he did not care whether American informants were killed because they were traitors, which was their due retribution.

Testified this morning was John Gotz, who is now the chief investigative editor of NDR (German Public Television) and was the editor-in-chief of Spiegel. Gotz was one of four people who attended that dinner. He was ready and willing to testify that Julian hadn't said that, and Luke Harding was lying (very normal).Judge Baraitser did not allow Goets to testify on this, although she had previously allowed two absent witnesses to testify on this.

Baretzer's legal basis is this. Goetz’s “application” to reveal Harding’s lies is not in his written statement of evidence (put before Lewis raised questions to other witnesses). Therefore, only when Lewis interrogated Goets did Goets be allowed to refute the lies that Lewis deliberately made up. Lewis refused to ask witnesses present what had happened because he knew the lies he spread would be exposed.

Lewis said he had informed Clive Stafford Smith about the so-called conversation, and he knew nothing about it, here is my report:

Then, Lewis quoted a passage from Stafford Smith in his book WikiLeaks. In this article, Luke Harding said that he and David Leigh were most concerned about protecting the informant’s name, but Julian Assange said that the Afghan informant was a traitor who deserves punishment. "They are informants, so if they are killed, they are asking for it." Lewis tried several times to get Stafford Smith in, but Stafford Smith repeatedly said he understood that these so-called facts were controversial, and he himself was not aware of it.

James Lewis said the same thing to Professor Mark Feldstein. Professor Mark Feldstein has nothing to do with this matter. Here is my report:

Then, Lewis read the same thing he gave to Stafford Smith, from Leigh and Harding, saying that Julian Assange once said that those Afghan informants deserve retribution.

James Lewis knew that these witnesses had nothing to do with the conversation and he explained to them that the incident was purely to allow lies to enter court records and to cause public discussion. James Lewis also knew Gotts was there at the time. Harding's book details the exact date and location of the dinner, with participants including two German journalists, one of which Gotts.

has a tendency to invite unrelated people to participate in the litigation process without allowing participants to tell the truth. This practice is obviously contrary to justice. Regardless of the rules of evidence, Barretzer and Lewis are blatantly abusing the process here. This is another extremely unfair example in the process.

If you are not angry about this, try this. Daniel Elsberg will testify this afternoon. Edward Fitzgerald applied for a video hearing at 3:15 p.m. (House 4, California , who lives in Dan, is 7:15 a.m.). Barretzer insisted that the evidence could not be postponed until after 2:30 pm, forcing an 89-year-old to get up at 6:30 AM to provide evidence, which was amazing.

This is the thing, when Dan was 108, in his dying bed, he was still able to outsmart James Lewis while reading White Whale and playing ukulele, but the persistent, cynical, indifference to the defense only leaves you at a loss.

John Gotts was the first witness this morning. Since 2011, he has served as senior investigative editor for NDR. From 2007 to 2011, he worked for Spiegel. He published a series of articles about Germany's involvement in the Afghan war, including one about the Kunduz bombing and massacre of civilians, which he won the German highest journalism award for it. In June 2010, he went to London to meet with WikiLeaks and the " Guardian " to study the Afghan war log.

At a series of meetings held by The Guardian and the New York Times and other major media partners in the Bunker, both sides worked together to study the Afghan war log, but both sides chose to publish their own reports. The collaboration between these five major news organizations, often competitors, was unique at the time.

In Gotz's view, Julian Assange seemed to be very obsessed with the safety of these materials, which shocked Gotz. He insists that everything is encrypted and there are strict regulations to deal with the materials. This is a new area for journalists.The New York Times is responsible for liaisoning with the White House, the Department of Defense and the State Department on issues dealing with these materials.

Mark Sumers asked Gotz to describe the characteristics of the Afghan war log, which Gotz said was fascinating first-hand material that provided low-level reports on practical actions. Witness material sometimes lacks a greater vision; but there is also a large amount of first-hand evidence of war crimes. He has worked with the Guardian's Nick Davies on the 373 Task Force coverage.

Julian Assange's biggest concern is finding the names of these people in the newspaper. He spent a lot of time researching technical methods to identify names from thousands of documents. Mark Summers asked Goetz if he had been searching for the names for editing, and Goetz confirmed it was for editing. He interviewed Assange about the operation’s hazard minimization program.

Previously, the New York Times' Eric Schmitt addressed the White House on behalf of the group, and he sent an email confirming 15,000 documents the White House does not want to publish, in order to avoid harming individuals or American interests. Both parties agreed not to publish these documents, and these documents were not released in the end. Summers asked Gotz if he knew there was a missing name, and Gotz replied no.

When the consortium handled the same process on the Iraqi war log, Gotz was not involved due to family reasons. But he knew that WikiLeaks edited the information more than the Department of Defense when the United States released a large amount of information under the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Goets recalled an email from David Leigh of The Guardian, which said that the release of some reports was delayed as WikiLeaks spent a lot of time on editing and editing the "bad news."

Sumers then turned to an investigation into Khaled el-Masri. Gotz said he had investigated the unusual statements of then-German citizen Masri during his first term in 2005-06. The latter claimed that he was kidnapped, handcuffed and taken around the world in Skopje, and suffered constant beatings and torture. Eventually, he was served (he believed) in the U.S. detention center in Afghanistan. At the time, his statement seemed incredible.

(Please allow me to make a personal statement here, which is about the time when I was exposing the torture plan as the British ambassador. In fact, then-British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw called me a liar to Parliament, and he called this unusual extradition plan a "conspiracy theory." I know how difficult it was to believe in me at that time.)

Goet's investigation proved that the story was true. Using extradition flight records and hotel records, he even managed to track down real criminals all the way to North Carolina and speak to some of them there. In Munich, there is enough evidence to issue an arrest warrant for 13 American agents or soldiers. Summers asked Gotz if they were arrested. Goetz replied that no, and to their surprise, no measures to submit an arrest warrant to the United States have been implemented so far.

Then, when WikiLeaks' diplomatic telegram was released, they were able to see the pressure put on the German government to not issue an arrest warrant. The United States has told Germany that doing so will have a serious impact on U.S.-German relations.

Diplomatic telegram between the United States and Germany.

1. In a February 6 discussion with German Deputy National Security Adviser Rolf Nikel, DCM reiterated our strong concern about the possible international arrest warrant in the Masri case. DCM pointed out that the German media reports on the matter being discussed by the US Secretary of State and Foreign Minister Steinmeier in Washington are not accurate because media reports suggest that the US government is not plagued by the progress of the Masri case. DCM stressed that this is not the case, and issuing an international arrest warrant will have a negative impact on our bilateral relations. He reminded Nikel that Italian authorities took similar actions last year, which had an impact on U.S.-Italy bilateral relations.

2. (S/NF) DCM noted that our purpose was not to threaten Germany, but to urge the German government to carefully weigh every step of the action that might have an impact on U.S. relations. We certainly recognize the independence of the German judiciary, but pointed out that the decision to issue an international arrest warrant or extradition request requires cooperation from the German federal government, especially the consent of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice. Our initial sign was that German federal authorities would not allow the issuance of arrest warrants, but subsequent contacts led us to believe that this was not the case.

3. (S/NF) Nikel also emphasized the independence of the German judiciary, but confirmed that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Justice will play a procedural role. He said the case received close attention from politics and justice. From a judicial perspective, the facts are clear and the Munich prosecutor's behavior is correct. Politically speaking, Germany had to study the impact on U.S. relations, Nikel said. At the same time, he pointed to our political differences in addressing the global war on terrorism, such as the residential suitability of Guantanamo facilities and the alleged use of extradition.

4. (S/NF) Nikel also mentioned the tremendous pressure from the Bundestag and the German media. Nikel said the German federal government must consider "the entire political background." He assured DCM that the Prime Minister's Office was very clear about the impact of the case on bilateral politics, but added that the case "would not be easy." Despite this, the Prime Minister's Office will play a constructive role as much as possible.

Sumers asked Goets if he was involved in the decryption work of "Spiegel". Gotts replied that he was. In addition to major media partners, WikiLeaks has introduced a Phase 2 local media partners in third-party countries that can better understand and edit news that is important to local audiences. This caused some delays and frustrated Gotz.

Sumers asked how thorough the editing process was. Gotts said the initial strict agreement was still in effect and he didn't know who had been hurt. U.S. State Department has actively participated in this process. P.J. Crowley and others will call to ask for editing and omitting some content. All these have been implemented. Ultimately, the U.S. government decided to withdraw from cooperation.

Baretze issued a time warning.

Then Summers asked about the incident that led to the unedited message. It's a complicated process, Gotts said. In February 2011, Luke Harding and David Leigh published a book containing the password for the encrypted cable online cache. This was discussed on different mirroring sites, and after Der Freitag participated, Cryptome finally announced the full cache. Cryptome was very famous at the time and was also an important source of information for journalists.

Then, Summers asked why WikiLeaks and The Guardian had broken down. Just then, Barretzer ruled that Summers would not allow him to ask what happened when he was attending the dinner at El Moro. Summers made a formal request because Lewis introduced the issue to other witnesses who were not like Goets and were not present at the time. Louis objected, and Barretzer rejected the request.

James Lewis then cross-examined witnesses for the U.S. government and directly mentioned unedited telegrams released by Wikileaks in August and September 2011. Gotts mentioned his previous evidence about the password leak and said Cryptome was the first to publish it. Lewis retorted that on August 29, 2011, WikiLeaks released 133,877 telegrams and stated that this was "a commitment to maximize impact and make information available to everyone under WikiLeaks." This was two days before Cryptome was published.

A rather chaotic period followed. Assange yelled in the dock, saying it was a false quote. He was warned that he would be excluded from the court. It turns out that this is indeed a wrong reference, and what I gave above is the corrected version. Lewis then asked some rather confusing questions about Goetz, and the result was that these were non-confidential and/or edited telegrams (a quarter of the hidden list). Gotts said he could not comment on Lewis’ suggestions (i.e. Lewis said some people’s names were marked “strictly protected”).

Lewis said that after the cooperation, these materials were discarded. Gotts said no, WikiLeaks invested a lot of time, money and human resources in the project, and through detailed discussions, he knew they were going to spend at least another year following up and launching reports. Then Cryptome was published.

Lewis quoted a September 1 article by The Guardian in which the initial media partners, including Der Spiegel, condemned the public unedited documents. He asked Gotz if the 15,000 detained telegrams were also "abandoned"? Gotts replied that it was not a telegram, but a log of the Afghan war; at the same time, as far as he knew, the telegram was not abandoned.

Lewis went on to say that there is evidence that Assange is meticulous, humorous and energetic; does Gotts agree? Gotz said, yes. Lewis then quoted Christine Assange as saying what a good father her son was and invited Goets to comment. Gotts replied that he could not know this.

(It's hard to explain this somewhat sinister ending question. Maybe it's to refute psychiatric evidence?)

In Mark Summers' re-examination, Gotts said that when the telegram editing process was going on, no risky names were released. As far as he knows, no one was hurt by publishing. In close contact with Assange, he knew Assange had worked very hard to prevent the unedited telegram from being published: he had begged Fretag (don't post).

In the afternoon of the same day, the witness was Dan Ellsberg, a senior whistleblower. He was born in , Chicago, in 1931 and received his education at Harvard and Cambridge. He served in the Navy from 1954 to 1974; from 1964 to 1965, he was a special assistant to the Secretary of Defense. He then participated in the writing of a 47-volume official classification report titled "History of Decision making in Vietnam".

Ellsberg briefly explained that the report shows that the Vietnam War continued even though it was impossible to win. This shows that both the public and Congress have been repeatedly deceived. He leaked the report to lawmakers and then to the public in the form of Pentagon documents. This led to the famous "pre-restricted publication" case. According to the Espionage Act, there is also a less well-known criminal case against him personally. The court dismissed the request to disclose the case with bias.

Edward Fitzgerald asked Elsberg to comment on WikiLeaks and Manning's publications about Afghanistan. Ellsberg replied that he saw something very similar to himself. These documents have the ability to inform the public about the progress of the war and the "limited possibilities" of the successful end of the war. The Afghan War Log shows information at the level of action rather than a broader perspective, but its effects are similar. He strongly agrees with the source and process of publishing.

Fitzgerald then asked Ellsberg Assange if he held political views related to this article. Ellsberg said it was ridiculous for the prosecution to file objections. Ellsberg was motivated by the political views of his own publications, and Assange had very similar views. He had a very interesting discussion with Assange and felt a great affinity with him. They all believe that government decisions are very lacking in transparency to the public. The public has received a lot of false information.

When the public gets so little real information and gets so much false information, true democracy is impossible. The Iraq War is an example, obviously an illegal war of aggression against the UN Charter of , and a war launched by selling lies to the public.

Afghan War Logs are similar to the low-level report written by Ellsberg in Vietnam. This is one thing; invade and occupy foreign countries regardless of the will of most foreigners. This only brings about failure or endless conflict: this has been happening for 19 years. The War Log reveals patterns of war crimes: torture, assassination and firing squads.One thing that has changed since the Vietnam War is that these things are now becoming very normal and even listed as the top secret.

All Pentagon files are top secret. WikiLeaks' files are not. They are not just "not the top secret", they don't even have a strict release classification. This means that by definition there shouldn't be anything truly sensitive in such documents, and certainly not life-threatening.

Fitzgerald asked him about the collateral murder (the 39-minute video released by WikiLeaks in 2010 shows the 2007 air strike in Baghdad . In the video, two helicopters piloted by the US carried out a series of air-to-ground attacks over Baghdad, causing casualties of civilians and children, including two Iraqi journalists. The video recording showed the crew even ridiculing the casualties, causing huge controversy). Ellsberg said it was apparently murder, including intentional fire from a machine gun to a wounded unarmed civilian. It's murder, there's no doubt about it. The word "indirect" is suspicious and means accidental. What is really shocking is the Pentagon’s reaction that these war crimes are within the scope of the rules of engagement, which means that murder is allowed.

Edward Fitzgerald asked if Ellsberg was allowed to raise questions about intentions at the trial. Elsberg's answer was no. Under the Espionage Act of 1917, distributing confidential materials outside of designated recipients is a criminal act of strict liability. This is absolutely inappropriate for the trial of the informant. "I haven't been given a fair trial, and there aren't some whistleblowers in the United States recently. Julian Assange hasn't been given a fair trial."

In a cross-examination on behalf of the U.S. government, James Lewis asked Ellsberg to confirm that he was working for the Rand Company when copying the Pentagon documents. Ellsberg said, yes. Assange will not be prosecuted for posting a accompanying murder video, Lewis said. Ellsberg said the accompanying murder video is crucial to understanding the rules of engagement. Lewis retorted that Assange was not charged for announcing the rules of engagement. He was only prosecuted for publishing unedited names of those who might have been hurt.

Ellsberg replied that he had read the alternative indictment and that Assange was accused of obtaining, receiving and possessing material including rules of engagement, accompanying murder videos and all documents. In terms of publishing, he was only accused of providing a name. Lewis said other charges were linked to a conspiracy with Chelsea Manning. "Yes, but they are still allegations," Ellsberg replied, citing U.S. assistant attorney Gordon Kromberg as saying that the prosecution was aimed at the publication of the names of those who "saved their lives and freedoms to help the United States." Lewis compared this with Ellsberg: “When you publish the Pentagon documents, you are very careful about what you give to the media.” Ellsberg replied, keeping three to four books to avoid difficulties in the diplomatic efforts to end the war.

Lewis said he was protecting individuals. Ellsberg said: No; if he publishes these documents, the U.S. government may use this as an excuse to withdraw from diplomatic procedures and continue the war. Lewis asked if there were names in the Pentagon documents that could have hurt them. Ellsberg replied yes. In one case, a secret CIA agent was named, who participated in the CIA assassination of an important Vietnamese politician. He was Ellsberg's personal friend, who was thought carefully about this but left his name in the Pentagon document.

Lewis asked Esberg if he had read the article "Why WikiLeaks isn't a Pentagon Document," written by Floyd Abrams, who represented the New York Times Pentagon Document case. Ellsberg replied that he had read several similar articles by Abrams. He didn't know Abrams, he was involved in civil cases, not criminal cases, and he had seen him once at an awards ceremony a long time later.

Lewis said that Abrams had written that Ellsberg kept four books, and "who would have doubts about whether Assange would publish all the documents"? Ellsberg replied that he disagreed and that Abrams never discussed it with him or Assange for a minute. "He doesn't understand my motivation at all in the article." Those who want to criticize Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden while pretending to be liberals generally hold the stance he outlines.

What he wrote is completely unreal. Julian Assange withdrew 15,000 documents. He went through a long and difficult editing process. He asked the U.S. State Department and the Department of Defense to provide assistance on the issue of proofreading. I believe that if I were in my position, Assange would have detained these books like I did. He had no intention of name.

Ten years have passed, and the US government still cannot name a person, who was hurt by WikiLeaks. I was shocked by Kromberg's allegation that he made without providing evidence. Since no one was injured, the risk was obviously not as high as they claimed – indeed, the document classification will tell you.

They said exactly the same thing about me (as for Assange). They said that CIA agents and those who help the United States will be hurt. "They said I would have my hands covered in blood."

Now James Lewis has asked an unusual "question" and he was allowed to read about 11 paragraphs from different locations in Kromberg's scattered affidavit. Kromberg said in it that the results announced by WikiLeaks have led to some American sources having to leave their homes, hide, or change their names to countries including Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, , , Ethiopia and other countries. Some informants from Afghanistan and Iraq later disappeared. Taliban has publicly stated that those who work with the US military will be killed. An Ethiopian journalist was forced to flee Ethiopia after being accused of being an American informant. WikiLeaks found some material in his property after Osama bin Laden was shot dead. Lewis asked angrily: "How could you say no one was hurt? Or did you tell the truth?"

Ellsberg: I ​​certainly regret the inconvenience of all these people who feel they are in danger. But has any of them really been physically hurt? Did one of them really suffer the claimed physical consequences (hazards)?

Lewis: You're sorry people are put in danger. Do you think there is absolutely no harm in publishing the names of these people?

Ellsberg: Assange's behavior is completely opposite to his statement that he deliberately published these names. If hundreds of people are hurt, it will be counter to the huge benefits of publishing information. There is no evidence that they have suffered any actual harm, but this must be done in the context of policy Assange is trying to change. The invasion killed 37 million refugees and 1 million people. Of course, some people can no longer be placed in a war that killed 1 million people and displaced 37 million people. The government is very hypocritical and pretends to care about them, facing the general contempt of their lives in the Middle East. They even refused to help edit the name. This is pretending to care.

Lewis: What should those missing people do? Isn’t this common sense that some people are forced to disappear or run away under another name?

Ellsberg: In my opinion, that small number of people who may have been murdered or fled cannot be necessarily attributed to WikiLeaks, because they are one of more than one million people who have been murdered and 37 million people who have escaped.

Lewis then asked Esberg if he actually saved an encrypted backup of Manning's data for Assange. Ellsberg replied, yes; in fact it was destroyed later.

In the review, Fitzgerald asked Ellsberg about a paragraph from Kromberg's testimony, stating that the U.S. government cannot certainly attribute any death to WikiLeaks' material. Ellsberg said that this was his understanding, and that was also what Manning said when he was trial.He was shocked, it was like Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, and he initially tended to believe the government's claims about the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, just as he initially tended to believe the government's claims about the deaths of WikiLeaks. In both cases, it proves that they are making up.

comments

The Supreme Court heard a lot more facts than it could handle today and put in a tremendous effort to rule out more facts (reported). The U.S. government successfully blocked John Goets, a witness to refute what they published about Luke Harding's "speak" about Assange's restaurant at El Moro. The U.S. government also successfully opposed Khaled el-Masri's testimony on the grounds that he claimed he was tortured in the United States. Given that both the European Court of Human Rights and the German Court held that Masri's story was true, it would be considered wrong to speak the truth in the courtroom only in the eccentric world of Lewis and Barretzer.

Please do your best to share this post, as all of us who actually report this post are suffering from extreme bans and other suppression from social media.

(The following is the original link of on the 11th day , this article has been slightly deleted.)

Editor in charge: Shen Guanzhe

Proofreading: Luan Meng