"Lewis asked why Timm had omitted Kromberg’s reference to the grand jury decision? Timm replied that it meant very little: 99.9% of grand juries agree to return a prosecution. An academic study of 152,000 grand juries had revealed only 11 which had refused the request of a federal prosecutor to prosecute."<p>That's some statistics ...
Independent of the more important points of the article, this quote provided some amusement :)<p>> Lewis then asked Timm if he had seen the actual evidence that supports the indictment. Timm replied only some of it, in particular the Java script of the messages allegedly between Assange and Manning.
It strongly seems to me that the British establishment is incredibly pissed at Assange for the trouble he caused by holing up in the embassy, and is therefore making life as difficult for him as possible.
Thing I don't get about this case: the UK will refuse to extradite Assange because he will be tortured if they do that (ironically for exposing proof that the US tortures prisoners).<p>And then the UK proceeded to torture him themselves (torture are the words "The Lancet" used [1], they cannot reasonably be dismissed as cranks) ... Illegally, by UK laws, and refuse to be held accountable for that in their own courts. Not that the judge even tries to demand reasonable treatment for Julian Assange from the prosecutor.<p>UK laws are very clear on what should happen in this case: because of the government's treatment of Assange the case should be thrown out, because obviously the government has acted illegally against him on MANY occasions, they don't even give him his rights INSIDE THE COURTROOM (to talk to his lawyer privately and however much he wants without interference). The government DOES NOT have the right to sue somebody for anything once they have tortured him. Once they have lied about the case, they lose the right to sue. Once they refuse medical aid to a prisoner, they lose the right to sue. They have spied on his communication with his lawyer, again grounds for dismissal. They are obviously not feeding him right, which again would normally disqualify the government's case. Or at the very least, warrants a delay in the case with him decently taken care of until he is once again strong and fit enough to stand trial. Note that this is completely independent of the merit of the case itself: the QC in any normal case like this would never be allowed to make their case without fixing these issues first. Some of these reasons for dismissal the judge has seen happen right in front of him with his own eyes.<p>Then there is the fact that the UK government does not have evidence against Assange on this crime (because he violated US law, not UK law), furthermore I do not see how it could -legally- obtain any such evidence.<p>And yet this farce continues. The judge systematically refuses to face issues of fairness of the case and is obviously intimidated by the government.<p>This shows one thing very clearly : the United Kingdom's government (the "executive") has ZERO intention of following through on their commitment to either follow their own laws, respect human rights and has no qualms whatsoever to threaten their own branches of government, when they want to violate laws.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30383-4/fulltext" rel="nofollow">https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...</a>
The surreal aspect of this is the UK prosecution's assertions that the US prosecution is not politically motivated. All you have to do is look at the speech that CIA Director (now Secretary of State) Mike Pompeo made about Wikileaks and Assange in April 2017.[1] These passages give a taste of his remarks:<p>> It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.<p>> No, I am quite confident that had Assange been around in the 1930s and 40s and 50s, he would have found himself on the wrong side of history.<p>> We know this because Assange and his ilk make common cause with dictators today.<p>> That Assange is the darling of terrorists is nothing short of reprehensible.<p>> No, Julian Assange and his kind are not the slightest bit interested in improving civil liberties or enhancing personal freedom. They have pretended that America’s First Amendment freedoms shield them from justice. They may have believed that, but they are wrong.<p>> Assange is a narcissist who has created nothing of value. He relies on the dirty work of others to make himself famous. He is a fraud—a coward hiding behind a screen.<p>> First, it is high time we called out those who grant a platform to these leakers and so-called transparency activists. We know the danger that Assange and his not-so-merry band of brothers pose to democracies around the world. Ignorance or misplaced idealism is no longer an acceptable excuse for lionizing these demons.<p>> Third, we have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us. To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now.<p>But if you listen to the UK prosecutor, Assange is just being prosecuted because some low-level prosecutor in the US decided, on their own initiative, to build a case against him. The fact that high-level officials in the US government have been openly calling for an example to be made of Assange is supposed to be irrelevant.<p>The UK should have dismissed this extradition request out-of-hand when it was first made, given the obvious political motivations behind it. The US-UK extradition treaty makes it very clear that extradition is not allowed in such cases.<p>1. <a href="https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2017-speeches-testimony/pompeo-delivers-remarks-at-csis.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2017...</a>
Odd characterizations.<p>"At this point he was grinning very strangely indeed, looking up at the judge, leaning back with one arm wide across his chair back, in some sort of peculiar alpha male gesture."<p>Similar to a roald dahl book.
While I appreciate the reporting from inside the court room, Craig Murray is clearly biased and thus predisposed to seeing what he wants to see.<p>His characterizations paint the prosecution as ridiculous characters and their case as laughable at best, which may not reflect reality as much one would hope.<p>So what he is describing might be very unlike what the judges are experiencing, and if they end up giving the extradition of Assange's the go-ahead, a lot of people are going to be very surprised.<p>Edit: This rollercoaster of upvotes and downvotes on a post that just reminds people to not blindly trust someone who tells them what they want to hear is interesting in itself.