Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day 9 94


Things became not merely dramatic in the Assange courtroom today, but spiteful and nasty. There were two real issues, the evidence and the procedure. On the evidence, there were stark details of the dreadful regime Assange will face in US jails if extradited. On the procedure, we saw behaviour from the prosecution QC that went well beyond normal cross examination and was a real attempt to denigrate and even humiliate the witness. I hope to prove that to you by a straightforward exposition of what happened today in court, after which I shall add further comment.

Today’s witness was Eric Lewis. A practising US attorney for 35 years, Eric Lewis has a doctorate in law from Yale and a masters in criminology from Cambridge. He is former professor in law at Georgetown University, an elected member of both the American Law Institute and the Council on Foreign Relations and a fellow of the American Bar Foundation. He is Chairman of Reprieve. He has represented high profile clients in national security and terrorism cases, including Seymour Hersh and Guantanamo Bay internees.

Lewis had submitted five statements to the court, between October 2019 and August 2020, addressing the ever-changing indictments and charges brought by the prosecution. He was initially led through the permitted brief half-hour summary of his statements by defence QC Edward Fitzgerald. (I am told I am not currently allowed to publish the defence statements or links to them. I shall try to clarify this tomorrow.)

Eric Lewis testified that no publisher had ever been successfully prosecuted for publishing national security information in the USA. Following the Wikileaks publications including the diplomatic cables and the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, Assange had not been prosecuted because the First Amendment was considered insuperable and because of the New York Times problem – there was no way just to prosecute Assange without prosecuting the New York Times for publishing the same material. The New York Times had successfully pleaded the First Amendment for its publication of the Pentagon Papers, which had been upheld in a landmark Supreme Court judgement.

Lewis here gave evidence that mirrored that already reported of Prof Feldstein, Trevor Timm and Prof Rogers, so I shall not repeat all of it. He said that credible sources had stated the Obama administration had decided not to prosecute Assange, notably Matthew Miller, a highly respected Justice Department figure who had been close to Attorney General Holder and would have been unlikely to brief the media without Holder’s knowledge and approval.

Eric Lewis then gave testimony on the change of policy towards prosecuting Assange from the Trump administration. Again this mostly mirrored the earlier witnesses. He added detail of Mike Pompeo stating the free speech argument for Wikileaks was “a perversion of what our great country stands for”, and claiming that the First Amendment did not apply to foreigners.

Attorney General Sessions had accordingly stated that it was “a priority for the Justice Department” to arrest Julian Assange. He had pressured prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia to bring a case. In December 2017 an arrest warrant had been issued, with the indictment to be filled in later. The first indictment of a single count had been launched in March 2018, its timing possibly dictated by a limitation deadline.

In May 2019 a new superseding indictment increased the counts from one to eighteen, seventeen of which related to espionage. This tougher stance followed the appointment of William Barr as Attorney General just four months previously. The plain intention of the first superseding indictment was to get round the New York Times problem by trying to differentiate Assange’s actions with Manning from those of other journalists. It showed that the Justice Department was very serious and very aggressive in acting on the statements of Trump administration officials. Barr was plainly acting at the behest of Trump. This represented a clear abuse of the criminal enforcement power of the state.

The prosecution of a publisher in this way was unprecedented. Yet the facts were the same in 2018 as they had been in 2012 and 13; there was no new evidence behind the decision to prosecute. Crucially, the affidavits of US Assistant Attorney Gordon Kromberg present no legal basis for the taking of a different decision to that of 2013. There is no explanation of why the dossier was lying around with no action for five or six years.

The Trump administration had in fact taken a different political decision through the Presidential spokesperson Sarah Sanders who had boasted that only this administration had acted against Assange and “taken this process seriously”.

Edward Fitzgerald QC then turned to the question of probable sentencing and led Lewis through his evidence on this point. Eric Lewis confirmed that if Julian Assange were convicted he could very probably spend the rest of his life in prison. The charges had not been pleaded as one count, which it had been open to the prosecution to do. The judge would have discretion to sentence the counts either concurrently or consecutively. Under current sentencing guidelines, Assange’s sentence if convicted could range from “best case” 20 years to a maximum of 175 years. It was disingenuous of Gordon Kromberg to suggest a minimal sentence, given that Chelsea Manning had been sentenced to 35 years and the prosecution had requested 60.

It had been a government choice to charge the alleged offences as espionage. The history of espionage convictions in the USA had generally resulted in whole life sentences. 20 to 30 years had been lighter sentences for espionage. The multiple charges approach of the indictment showed a government intention to obtain a very lengthy sentence. Of course the final decision would lay with the judge, but it would be decades.

Edward Fitzgerald then led on to the question of detention conditions. On the question of remand, Gordon Kromberg had agreed that Julian Assange would be placed in the Alexandria City Jail, and there was a “risk” that he would be held there under Special Administrative Measures. In fact this was a near certainty. Assange faced serious charges related to national security, and had seen millions of items of classified information which the authorities would be concerned he might pass on to other prisoners. He would be subject to Special Administrative Measures both pre- and post-conviction.

After conviction Julian Assange would be held in the supermax prison ADX Florence, Colorado. There were at least four national security prisoners currently there in the H block. Under SAMS Assange would be kept in a small cell for 22 or 23 hours a day and not allowed to meet any other prisoners. He would be allowed out once a day for brief exercise or recreation excluded from other prisoners, but shackled.

Fitzgerald then led Lewis to the 2017 decision by the International Criminal Court to open an investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan, in which the evidence provided by the Wikileaks release of US war logs and diplomatic cables provided essential evidence. This had been denounced by Trump, John Bolton and Pompeo. The ICC prosecutor’s US visa had been cancelled to hinder his investigation. An Executive Order had been issued imposing financial sanctions and blocking the banking access of any non US national who assisted the ICC investigation into crimes alleged against any US citizen. This would affect Julian Assange.

At this point, the half-hour guillotine imposed by Judge Baraitser on defence evidence came down. Fitzgerald pointed out they had not even reached the second superseding indictment yet, but Baraitser said that if the prosecution addressed that in cross examination, then the defence could question on it in re-examination.

James Lewis QC then rose to cross examine Eric Lewis. Yet again, he adopted an extremely aggressive tone. This is perhaps best conveyed as a dialogue.

NB this is not a precise transcript. It would be illegal for me to publish a transcript (of a “public” court hearing; fascinating but true). This is condensed and slightly paraphrased. It is I believe a fair and balanced representation of what happened, but not a verbatim record.

Eric Lewis was appearing by videolink and it should be borne in mind that he was doing so at 5am his time.

James Lewis QC Are you retained as a lawyer by Mr Assange in any way?
Eric Lewis No.
James Lewis QC Are you being paid for your evidence?
Eric Lewis Yes, as an expert witness. At a legal aid rate.
James Lewis QC Are you being paid for your appearance in this court?
Eric Lewis We haven’t specifically discussed that. I assume so.
James Lewis QC How much are you being paid?
Eric Lewis £100 per hour, approximately.
James Lewis QC How much have you charged in total?
Eric Lewis I don’t know, haven’t worked it out yet.
James Lewis QC Are you aware of the rules governing expert witnesses?
Eric Lewis Yes, I am. I must state my qualifications and my duty is to the court; I have to give an objective and unbiased view.
James Lewis QC You are also supposed to set out alternative views. Where have you set out the arguments in Mr Kromberg’s five affidavits?
Eric Lewis The court has Mr Kromberg’s affidavits. I address his arguments directly in my statements. Are you saying that I should have repeated his affidavits and all the other evidence in my statements? My statements would have been thousands of pages long.
James Lewis QC You are supposed to be unbiased. But you had previously given views that Mr Assange should not be extradited.
Eric Lewis Yes, I published an article to that effect.
James Lewis QC You also gave an interview to an Australian radio station.
Eric Lewis Yes, but both of those were before I was retained as an expert witness in this case.
James Lewis QC Does this not create a conflict of interest?
Eric Lewis No, I can do an objective analysis setting aside any prejudice. Lawyers are used to such situations.
James Lewis QC Why had you not declared these media appearances as an interest?
Eric Lewis I did not think perfectly open actions and information needed to be declared.
James Lewis QC It would be much better if we were not forced to dig out this information. You give opinions on law. You also give opinions on penal conditions. Are you an expert witness?
Eric Lewis I am very familiar with prison conditions. I visit prisons. I studied criminology at Cambridge. I keep up to date with penology. I have taught aspects of it at university.
James Lewis QC Are you a qualified penologist?
Eric Lewis I think I have explained my qualification.
James Lewis QC Can you point us to peer reviewed articles which you have published on prison conditions?
Eric Lewis No.
James Lewis QC Have you visited ADX Colorado?
Eric Lewis No, but I have had a professional relationship with a client in there.
James Lewis QC Have you represented anyone in Alexandra Detention Centre?
Eric Lewis Yes, one person, Abu Qatada.
James Lewis QC So you have no expertise in prisons?
Eric Lewis I have visited extensively in prisons and observed prison conditions. I have read widely and in detail on the subject.
James Lewis QC Abu Qatada was acquitted of 14 of the 18 charges against him. Was that not acquittal by the same jury pool that would try Julian Assange?
Eric Lewis No. That was Colombia, not Eastern Virginia. Very different jury pools.
James Lewis QC The prosecutors withdrew capital charges. You said that was a courageous but correct decision?
Eric Lewis Yes.
James Lewis QC So what was Qatada’s sentence and what was the maximum?
Eric Lewis The government asked for life but to my mind that was not legal for the charges on which he was convicted. He got 22 years. That was much criticised as harsh for those charges.
James Lewis QC Was the Abu Qatada trial a denial of justice?
Eric Lewis No.
James Lewis QC Abu Qatada was held under Special Administrative Measures. Did that prevent you from spending many hours with him?
Eric Lewis No, but it made it extremely difficult. The many hours were spread out over a long period. That is why remand lasted for three years.
James Lewis QC Were your meetings with him monitored?
Eric Lewis Yes.
James Lewis QC But not by the prosecution.
Eric Lewis It was all recorded by the authorities. We were told that nothing would be passed to the prosecution. But from many other reports I am not convinced that is true.
James Lewis QC What jury pool was Zacarias Moussaoui convicted by?
Eric Lewis He was not convicted by a jury. He pled guilty.
James Lewis QC But the jury decided against the death penalty.
Eric Lewis Yes.
James Lewis QC What about Maria Butina? She was charged with being an agent of the Russian Federation but received a light sentence?
Eric Lewis That was a very weird case. She did no more than cultivate some figures in the National Rifle Association. She was sentenced to time served.
James Lewis QC But she only got 18 months when the maximum was 20 years?
Eric Lewis Yes. It was not a comparable case, and it was a plea deal.
James Lewis QC You have addressed prison conditions because the defence argue that Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights will be breached. You consider the case of Babar Ahmed. You state that it is “almost certain” that Julian Assange will be subject to administrative segregation. What is the procedure for administrative segregation?
Eric Lewis The bureau president will decide depending upon various factors including security risk, threat to national security, threat to other prisoners, seriousness of the charge. My experience is that national security charged prisoners go straight into administrative segregation.
James Lewis QC (very aggressive) What are you reading?
Eric Lewis Pardon?
James Lewis QC You are reading something there. What is it?
Eric Lewis It is my witness statement. (Holds it up.) Is that not OK?
James Lewis QC That is alright. I thought it was something else. How many categories of administrative detention are there?
Eric Lewis I just went through the main ones. National security, serious charge, threat to other prisoners.
James Lewis QC You do not know the categories. They are (reels off a long list including national security, serious charge, threat to others, threat to self, medical custody, protective custody and several more). Do you agree there is no solitary confinement in administrative segregation and Special Administrative Measures?
Eric Lewis No.
James Lewis QC US Assistant Attorney Kromberg states in his affidavit that there is no solitary confinement.
Eric Lewis It is solitary confinement other than in the vernacular of the US prison service.
James Lewis QC In that case it is also not solitary confinement in the vernacular of the English High Court, which has accepted there is no solitary confinement.
Eric Lewis It is solitary confinement. When you are kept in a tiny cell for 23 hours a day and allowed no contact with the rest of the prison population even during the one hour you are allowed out, that is solitary confinement. The attempt to deny it is semantic.
James Lewis QC Was Abu Qatada in solitary confinement? When he was permitted unlimited legal visits?
Eric Lewis They were not unlimited. In reality there were practical and logistical obstacles. There was a single room that could be used, for the entire prison population. You had to get a booking for that one room. You had to book translation services. The FBI oversaw the visits and listened in. Now with Covid there are no visits at all. Theoretically visits are “unlimited” but in practice you do not get nearly as much time with your client as you need.
James Lewis QC You said that he would be held in solitary confinement. But is it not true that even prisoners under SAMs get a break schedule?
Eric Lewis There is a break schedule but it requires no other prisoner to be in the communal areas to have contact with the prisoner under SAM. So in practice the “one hour break” would typically be scheduled between 3am and 4am. Not many prisoners wanted to get out of bed at 3am to walk around a cold and empty communal area.

At this point there was a break. James Lewis QC used it forcefully to complain to Baraitser about the four hour limit set on his cross-examination of Eric Lewis. He said that so far he had only got through one and a half pages of his questions, and that Eric Lewis refused to give yes or no answers but instead insisted on giving lengthy explanations. James Lewis QC was plainly extremely needled by Eric Lewis’ explanations of “unlimited visiting time” and “no solitary confinement”. He complained that Baraitser was “failing to control the witness”.

It was plain that James Lewis’s real aim was not to get more time, but to get Baraitser to curtail Eric Lewis’s inconvenient answers. It is of course amazing that he was complaining about four hours, when the defence had been limited to half an hour and had not even been permitted to get to the latest superseding indictment.

Baraitser, to her credit, replied that it was not for her to control the witness, who must be free to give his evidence so long as it was relevant, which it was. It was a question of fairness not of control. James Lewis was asking open or general questions.

James Lewis responded that the witness refused to give binary answers. Therefore his cross examination must be longer than four hours. He became very heated and told Baraitser that never in his entire career had he been subject to a guillotine on cross examination, and that this “would not happen in a real court”. He very definitely said that. “This would not happen in a real court.” I have of course been arguing all along that this is not a genuine process. I did not expect to hear that from James Lewis QC, though I think his intention was just to bully Baraitser, which was confirmed by Lewis going on to state he had never heard of such a guillotine in his capacity of “High Court Judge”. I find that Lewis is listed as “deputy high court judge”, which I think is like being 12th man at cricket, or Gareth Bale.

Baraitser only conceded very slight ground under this onslaught, saying she had never used the word guillotine, that the timings had been agreed between parties, and she expected them to stick to them. James Lewis said it was impossible in that way adequately to represent his client (the US government). He said he felt “stressed”, which for once seemed true, he had gone purple. Baraitser said he should try his best to stick to the four hours. He fumed away (though at a later stage apologised to Baraitser for his “intemperate language”).

James Lewis QC’s touting for business webpage describes him as “the Rolls Royce of advocates”. I suppose that is true, in the sense of foreign owned. Yet here he was before us, blowing a gasket, not getting anywhere, emitting fumes and resembling a particularly unloved Trabant.

Cross-examination of Eric Lewis resumed. James Lewis QC started by reiterating the criteria and categories for Administrative Segregation after conviction (as opposed to pre-trial). Then we got back into questioning.

James Lewis QC Gordon Kromberg states that there is no solitary confinement in ADX Colorado.
Eric Lewis Again this is semantic. There is solitary confinement.
James Lewis QC But there is an entitlement to participate in three programmes a week.
Eric Lewis Not in Special Administrative Measures.
James Lewis QC But which of the criteria for Special Administrative Measures might Julian Assange fall into?
Eric Lewis Criteria 2, 4 and 5, at least.
James Lewis QC Can we agree there is a formal procedure?
Eric Lewis Yes, but not worth the name.
James Lewis Your opinion is based on one single client in ADX Colorado.
Eric Lewis Yes, but the system is essentially the same as other supermaxes.
James Lewis At para 14 of your report you state that the system lacks procedural rights, and is tantamount to solitary confinement. Had you read the European Court of Human Rights judgement on Babar Ahmad when you wrote this?
Eric Lewis Yes.
James Lewis That judgement specifically rejects the same claims you make.

James Lewis QC refers to a number of paragraphs in the original UK District court decision in the case of Babar Ahmad. Eric Lewis asks for more time to find the document as “I only received these documents from the court this morning”.

James Lewis QC But Mr Lewis, you have testified on oath that you had read the Babar Ahmad judgement.
Eric Lewis I have read the final judgement of the European Court of Human Rights. I had not read all the judgements from lower courts. I received them from the court this morning.
James Lewis QC The senior district judge ruled that although Special Administrative Measures were a concern, they did not preclude extradition. There were various safeguards to SAMs. For example although attorney/client conversations were monitored, that was only for the purpose of preventing terrorism and the FBI did not pass on the recordings to the prosecution. The judge rejected the idea that SAMs amounted to solitary confinement. The High Court upheld the District judge’s ruling and the House of Lords rejected Babar Ahmad’s application to appeal. In its ruling on admissibility of the case, the European Court of Human Rights considered six affidavits from US attorneys very similar to that submitted by Eric Lewis in this case. This included the affirmations that it would be “virtually certain” that Babar Ahmad would be subject to SAMs, and that these would interfere directly with the right to a fair trial, and would constitute cruel and degrading treatment. The ECHR found in relation to pre-trial detention that these allegations were wrong in the Babar Ahmad case.
Eric Lewis But that was a terrorism case, not a national security case. SAMs apply differently in national security cases. This is about a million classified documents. Different cases had to be considered each on their merits.
James Lewis QC In the Babar Ahmad case, the defence submissions were that the regime was harsh, amounted to solitary confinement nearly 24 hours a day, with one phone call every two weeks and one family visit a month. Is that not almost identical to your evidence here?
Eric Lewis Each case must be considered on its merits. There are key differences. Assange is charged with espionage not terrorism, and possession of classified intelligence is a factor. Mental health issues are also different. Under SAMS there is no internet access and no access to any news source. Only approved reading material is allowed. These would be particularly hard for Assange.
James Lewis QC But the Babar Ahmad case does specifically deal with mental health issues, between Babar and co-defendants these include clinical depression, suicide risk and Asperger’s. The court agreed that SAM’s would be likely to be applied both before and after trial. But it ruled that the American government had good reasons for imposing SAMs, were entitled to do so, and that there was a clear and non-arbitrary procedure for implementing them.

Eric Lewis replied that he disagreed that would be true in this case. SAM’s could be applied without procedure, by the US Attorney-General, and William Barr would do that in this case, on the basis of statements by Trump and Gina Haspel. In practice, SAMs had never been overturned whatever the claimed procedure. Eric Lewis did not agree they were not arbitrary.

There now followed an episode where James Lewis QC successfully tripped up Eric Lewis by quoting a passage from an Ahmad case judgement and then confusing him as to whether it was from the final ECHR judgement, which Eric Lewis had read, or from an earlier English court judgement or the ECHR prior judgement on admissibility, which he had not.

James Lewis QC So the ECHR viewed the argument that the SAM regime in pre-trial detention breaches Article 3 as ill-founded and inadmissible. Do you agree with the European Court of Human Rights?
Eric Lewis They found that in the Babar Ahmad admissibility decision in 2008. New information and evidence and changes to the regime since then might change that view.
James Lewis QC What are the defence issues that Assange will raise that you say makes proper consultation under the SAM regime impossible?
Eric Lewis Well I don’t know the precise details of what his defence will be but…
James Lewis QC [interrupting] Well how can you possibly know what the issues will be if you do not know the case?
Eric Lewis Because I have read the indictment. The issues are very wide ranging indeed and involve national security documents.
James Lewis QC But you don’t know what defence at all will be put forward, so how can you opine?
Eric Lewis The charges themselves give a fair idea what might be covered.
James Lewis QC Turning to the Babar Ahmad final judgement on post-trial incarceration at ADX Colorado. Have you read this (sarcastic emphasis) judgement? Of 210,307 federal prisoners, only 41 of these had SAMs. 27 were in ADX Colorado.
Eric Lewis The Warden of ADX Colorado himself had stated that it was “not fit for humanity” and “a fate worse than death”.
James Lewis QC The ECHR said that SAMS was subject to oversight by independent authorities who looked after the interests of prisoners and could intervene.
Eric Lewis Since that ECHR judgement, a new US judgement had stated that prisoners have no Fifth Amendment right to appeal against the conditions of their incarceration.
James Lewis QC The ECHR found that the US prison authorities took cognisance of a prisoner’s mental state in relation to SAM measures.
Eric Lewis Things have also moved on there since 2012. He referenced details from his written evidence.
James Lewis QC The ECHR also found that “the isolation experienced by ADX inmates is partial and relative. The court notes that their psychiatric conditions have not prevented their high security detention in the United Kingdom.” Do you accept that in 2012 the ECHR made a thorough finding?
Eric Lewis Yes, on the basis of what they knew in 2012, but much more information is now available. And there are specific reasons to doubt Mr William Barr’s impartiality.
James Lewis QC You say that Mr Assange will not receive adequate healthcare in a US prison. Are you a medical expert?
Eric Lewis No.
James Lewis QC Do you hold any medical qualification?
Eric Lewis No.
James Lewis QC What published statement gives the policy of the Bureau of Prisons on Mental Health?
Eric Lewis I was relying on the published statement of the US Inspector of Prisons and the study by Yale Law School of mental health in US prisons. The US Bureau of Prisons states that 48% of prisoners have serious mental health problems but only 3% receive any treatment. The provision for mental healthcare in jails has been cut every year for a decade. Suicides in jail are increasing by 18% a year.
James Lewis QC Have you read “The Treatment and Care of Prisoners with Mental Illness” by the US Department of Health?
Eric Lewis Yes.
James Lewis QC You purport to be an expert. Without looking it up what year was it published? You don’t know, do you?
Eric Lewis Could you be courteous. I have been courteous to you. Can you refer me to a relevant question?
James Lewis QC The policy has had eight changes since 2014. Can you list them?
Eric Lewis I am trying to testify on my experience and my knowledge in dealing with these questions on behalf of the many clients I have represented. If you are asking me am I a prison psychiatrist, I am not.
James Lewis QC Do you know the specific changes made since 2014 or not?
Eric Lewis I know that there were new regulations stipulating 1 mental health professional for every 500 inmates and guidelines for an increase in accessibility, but I also know those have not in fact been implemented due to lack of resources.
James Lewis QC (smirking) How many levels of psychiatric assessment are there? What is level number three? What are you reading? You are reading! What are you reading! What are you reading! [Yes, this is not a mistake. He did pull this stunt again.]
Eric Lewis I am looking at my own witness statement (shows it to camera).
James Lewis QC You are not a genuine expert witness – you have no expertise in these matters. As you are being paid to give evidence and are not an expert, that is something the court will have to take account in deciding what weight, if any at all, to give to your evidence.

Before Eric Lewis could respond, the video link broke down, rather bizarrely broadcasting a news item about Donald Trump attacking Julian Assange. It could not be restored all day, so that was the end of proceedings, for which my note taking hand was not ungrateful. The link could be restored in the adjacent courtroom, which indicates the problem was very local. The judge considered changing courts but it was considered too difficult to move everyone and the great mounds of files and equipment. This hearing has frequently been interrupted by the strange incompetence of the Ministry of Justice in establishing simple videolinks.

James Lewis QC’s conduct was very strange. It really is not normal courtroom behaviour. Were there a jury, they would completely have written him off by now as rude and obnoxious, and even Baraitser finally seems to have found her limit of being pushed around by the prosecution. Eric Lewis is obviously a very distinguished man and a lawyer with immense experience of the US system. Trying to claim he has no expertise because he is not a psychiatrist or an academic in penology is no more than a shoddy trick, performed in a manner designed to humiliate.

The asking for the precise title of one particular Department of Health Pamphlet or for a specific point in it, as though that were a way of invalidating all that Eric Lewis knows, is so transparently invalid as a test of worth that I am astonished Baraitser let James Lewis pursue it, let alone the histrionic accusations about “reading”. This was really hard to sit through silently for me; goodness knows what it was like for Julian.

The mainstream media are turning a blind eye. There were three reporters in the press gallery, one of them an intern and one representing the NUJ. Public access continues to be restricted and major NGOs, including Amnesty, PEN and Reporters Without Borders, continue to be excluded both physically and from watching online. It has taken me literally all night to write this up – it is now 8.54am – and I have to finish off and get back into court. The six of us allowed in the public gallery, incidentally, have to climb 132 steps to get there, several times a day. As you know, I have a very dodgy ticker; I am with Julian’s dad John who is 78; and another of us has a pacemaker.

I do not in the least discount the gallant efforts of others when I explain that I feel obliged to write this up, and in this detail, because otherwise the vital basic facts of the most important trial this century, and how it is being conducted, would pass almost completely unknown to the public. If it were a genuine process, they would want people to see it, not completely minimise attendance both physically and online.
 
 
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation.

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



 

Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments will be closed on September 28, 2020.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

94 thoughts on “Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day 9

1 2
  • Rhys Jaggar

    Someone needs to reply thus to James Lewis, Quisling C**t of a Queen’s Counsel:

    ‘You are not a barrister, you are a shameless prostitute utterly prepared to defend genocidal murderers, torturers and racists who claim that every non-US human being is inferior to US human beings as they have no rights to plead the First Amendment.

    Would you explain to this court why you have any right to pervert the course of justice by actively pursuing the incarceration of honest individuals whilst receiving huge payments from the most genocidal State on earth??’

    ‘I am happy to answer your derogatory questions, but only after you have shared with this court, under oath and fully cognisant of the consequences of perjury, just how many prostitutes you and/or your fellow London QCs have engaged for the purposes of subjecting you and/or your kind to humiliating degradation using whips, stiletto heels to tread on your perverted testicles, and any other number of kinky activities that satiate the perverted sexual desires of corruptible London QCs outside the court room?’

    Nothing like telling James Lewis what a disgusting pile of human excrement he is, telling him that you have no fear of his capabilities, his reputation, nor his standing in a court room where he can posit any number of lies without censure simply as ‘probing witnesses’, whereas any witness telling lies to tell the bullying psychopath where to get off gets five years in clink….

    No doubt Vanessa Baraitser would get very hoity toity, headmistress-esque with that lot.

    But there is an entirely justifiable case to treat a contemptible QC with contempt…..

  • Hope

    I love your retelling of the outburst of insufferable prosecutor Lewis. I can’t believe he lectured Baraitser like that, and she let him get away with it!!

    • David G

      And theoretically he’s endeavoring to persuade her. Does he think this will do it? Or is he satisfied the case has been pre-decided in his favor? Or is he bad at his job? Maybe (creepily) he knows she responds to this sort of thing …

  • NoTwoReally

    Not allowed to publish defence statements nor links to them?! Wasn’t the whole point of the 30 min guillotine supposed to be that the statements are in the public domain (though I daresay I’d never have found them without the help of this blog).

    • Fleur

      This is a very concerning point as that is exactly what the judge said:

      “Judge says witness statements will be made public. In her view there is no benefit to going through the statements but will give Defence no more than 30minutes with each witness to settle them in, so time needs to be shorter per witness.”
      per https://twitter.com/MaryKostakidis/status/130290943070580930

      So it is not the judge making this call.

      Then yesterday, Jennifer Robinson, one of Julian’s lawyers, called on the public to READ the statement of Eric Lewis:

      “I really urge for people to go and read Mr Lewis’ statements [there seem to be FIVE of them] which have now been released by the court …”
      See video at https://twitter.com/jlpassarelli/status/1305573766160879616

      So it isn’t the lawyers making this call either.

      And it couldn’t be WikiLeaks, which was founded on the principle of “scientific journalism” whereby people get to SEE the documentary evidence on which articles are based – wherever this is at all possible.

      So WHO is making this call for secrecy?

    • Bayard

      It brings to mind the scene in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, where the council official insists the plans for the new road are in the public domain.

      “But the plans were on display…”
      “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
      “That’s the display department.”
      “With a flashlight.”
      “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
      “So had the stairs.”
      “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
      “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

  • NWRA

    Craig, how dare you compare James Lewis QC with Gareth Bale? One is a grossly over-remunerated parasite of not more than upper-second rate ability who diverts enormous sums of money into his bank account for very little evident effort. The other plays for Real Madrid.

  • Ian

    I didn’t really know about these SuperMax prisons in the US and these Special Administrative Measures (SAM), which they have been arguing about. The gist is that the conditions are so inhumane and cruel that they are torture. Here are some details:
    https://www.westword.com/news/h-unit-at-colorados-federal-supermax-is-a-special-sort-of-hell-10496356

    It is such a level of human abuse, without any glimmer of hope, that it would be hardly surprising that some people would either go mad, or just prefer to end their life. It is such an unbelievable level of mental abuse and suffering, no-one could tolerate it or withstand it. This is what the prosecution was desperately trying to defend yesterday as in some way conforming to ‘justice’ or due process. No wonder he was getting in such a state, being trounced by the witness again and again. And no wonder the British authorities don’t want anyone knowing about what is going on, and what they are sending Assange into. Hell, basically, as even those who work there acknowledge.

    E Lewis is on the witness stand again today, expect more of the same.

    • David G

      Before reading this dispatch I had been under the illusion that, if nothing else, Assange could expect normal, medium-security-type accommodation in the U.S. jail and prison, if it actually came to that: a miserable but not necessarily obliterating existence. I had even thought there might be a tiny silver lining in getting him out of Belmarsh to where he could at least get some fresh air within the walls and human company, which I think would go a long way toward improving his health.

      Realizing how utterly wrong I was, and that they have him fitted out for SAMs and the living death of Florence, has killed me a little. It’s silly, but this is what has finally brought home to me just how deep his peril is. I feel so bad for him and for us.

      Well, I understand the U.S. government’s concern that Julian might tell some fellow inmate in the general population how Yukiya Amano really got the job heading the IAEA. Must protect the homeland!

      • Ian

        It is so harrowing and utterly soul destroying that it is deeply disturbing. What kind of human being came up with this regime, or believes that confinement in itself is not enough punishment but must be refined to the seventh level of hell for life. It if gratuitous torture which no sane person could endure.

  • Stephen C

    Thank you for your continued coverage of this hearing. I appreciate the big effort you are making to be there and publish the details of what you see and hear.

  • David G

    There are a few inconsequential typos in the piece, but maybe it would be good to correct the one instance of “Ivan Lewis” to “Eric Lewis”.

  • David G

    “It would be illegal for me to publish a transcript.”

    First the Salmond case, and now this. What the hell is going on on that island? Where did public trials go?

    • Deb O'Nair

      “What the hell is going on on that island?”

      It’s being run by a bunch of criminal quisling fascists – the evidence is everywhere and overwhelming.

  • Kim Sanders-Fisher

    I am shocked at the blatant abuse of our Justice System; is this the New Normal? I am shacked that the UK might allow the US to charge a foreign national in a way that is inconsistent and disallowed for application to their own citizens due to First Amendment rights in the US. We are moving to a very dark place in a dystopian nightmare future. I have noted that Peter Hitchens has, despite his admitted intense dislike of Julian Assange, written an article in the Daily Fail denouncing the US attempt to extradite him. This is important, why? Preaching to the choir is not enough. This disreputable tabloid reaches all the people least likely to be told the truth about this case. It worth mentioning to those more sceptical people who are not yet on side with the question, “but have you seen Hitchens article in the Daily Mail?”
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8725993/PETER-HITCHENS-argues-extraditing-Julian-Assange-threatens-press-freedom.html

    I am no fan of Peter Hitchens, but his Article, “My defence of Julian Assange – a man I abhor” presents an argument capable of stirring up the angry nationalistic masses by exposing the audacity of the US in trying to dictate to the Brits. As I learned when my own friends were thrown in jail in Somalia, pushing the press for as much publicity as possible is paramount to raising the profile of a case the British Government want the public to ignore. This might gain public attention from an unusual quarter which is important to derailing this extradition. Thank you for your tireless work and the herculean schedule you have taken on Craig. I offer a cynical little ditty to keep your spirits up…

    Tie me Kangaroo Down Sport,
    Tie me Kangaroo down,
    Kangaroo Justice in this Court,
    So tie me Kangaroo Down…

    A Kangaroo ruling proceedings,
    Let’s Kangaroos wallop defence,
    No chance to bound away free now,
    Julian’s tied-up inside the fence!

    Here to see Assange bound over,
    Bounced to torture in the US!
    Kangaroo Justice in this Court,
    They tied me Kangaroo Down…

    • Skye Mull

      Not a Daily Mail fan, but for some reason they do allow Peter Hitchens to make his brilliant observations on Sundays. Everyone concerned about Julian Assange should take a look at the above DM link that makes the intellectual case to complement Craig’s forensic approach.

  • Donibristle

    I was reading through this and wondering how the F*** you recorded it so well as no doubt devices are banned…. So you managed to scribble this down in your own shorthand ,and read & recreate it so well later on..?? Even more impressed by your reporting Craig.
    Frightening that this process against Assange is being done under the noses of the British people without them even noticing.
    Out of sight , out of mind ! Britain has become Fascist and we haven’t acknowledged it yet. Our so called opposition isn’t opposing it either. Starmer is complicit.
    Take care Craig !

  • Tim Glover

    Thank you Craig you are a true hero. You are not going to get rich on my donations but I have sent another 50 pounds to buy some more paper and a new biro

  • M.J.

    James Lewis’ behaviour to a fellow member of the legal profession looks shockingly disrespectful. I hope you keep up the good work, and that your own defense in October may go well, for example by establishing that the idea of what is “likely” has every right to be properly examined in court, including the evidence from the survey that you organised.

  • Susan

    I am not able to come to the Old Bailey to show my support for Julian in person (I live in Canada). All I can do, Craig, is support your efforts in making sure the ‘proceedings’ of this, THE most important trial of the century, is made available for the public. The Justice (sic) officials are doing their darndest to prevent not only access to the court, but also to knowledge of the proceedings. The window on truth and justice is closing, and this may be one of our last chances to “show up”.

    I am so grateful to you, Craig, for dragging your arse up those stairs to make your reportage, and also for your support for Julian and his father (I pray that Julian is not aware how the majority populace has forsaken him).

    • Wikikettle

      Susan, I agree, the majority don’t care. What an indictment of our population and the reason our cretin rulers get away with mass murder. Yet the histories will record their sins with witness of these many crimes by a handful of good folk like our Craig.

  • Gerry Bell

    Wow the Lewis Vs Lewis Punch & Judy show. James clearly coming off second best. To complain to the judge halfway through was practically a TKO for Eric. But it is just embarrassing to see how low British justice has sunk in relying on such a rude, ignorant and petty man.

  • giyane

    Craig Murray, three cheers for your tireless energy and grit.

    Imho Trump has two tickets to the presidency, white supremacists and Zionist supremacists. He also thinks you do whatever is necessary to win. I don’t believe he has any personal malice against Julian Assange. He is merely satisbying his two constituencies. I also don’t believe he would care tuppence about Assange rotting in solitary confinement if it got him another term as POTUS. After all he thinks California created its own fire problems, not climate change. Maybe he has a third constituency, all those US voters who think being utterly repellant is being strong, something us Brits can still remember from our Empire days. Days some recidivist idiots in the Tory party regret are gone.

    • mairi morrison

      Julian is in the dock not because of Donald Trump’s goals or his base. The problem is that he does not have a strong hold on his DOJ. There have always been civil servants in the DOJ who wanted to get Julian and during the chaos of the Trump administration that camp was able to get their wish. Sadly, despite the fact that many of Trump’s base are anti-war and support Assange they are not the wing that Trump feels a need to pander to.

  • dearieme

    “A practising US attorney for 35 years, Eric Lewis has a doctorate in law from Yale and a masters in criminology from Cambridge”: well that’s not a good start. Yale University is named after a slave trader so obviously it, and all its graduates, ought to be cancelled.

    As for criminologists, they make a career from making excuses for criminals. And yet the whole point is to argue that Assange is not a criminal, or at least not enough of a criminal that he should be ejected into the moral corruption that is the American court system.

    For all that I suppose I’d better read on.

  • dearieme

    “When you are kept in a tiny cell for 23 hours a day and allowed no contact with the rest of the prison population even during the one hour you are allowed out, that is solitary confinement. The attempt to deny it is semantic.” “Semantic” is weak – how about specious or Jesuitical?

    James Lewis QC: “Eric Lewis refused to give yes or no answers but instead insisted on giving lengthy explanations”: he’s a Yank, you fool. Americans gave up using terse, clear language two generations ago.

    ‘I find that Lewis is listed as “deputy high court judge”, which I think is like being 12th man at cricket, or Gareth Bale.’ Roars of applause, Murray old fruit.

    ‘James Lewis QC’s touting for business webpage describes him as “the Rolls Royce of advocates”. I suppose that is true, in the sense of foreign owned. Yet here he was before us, blowing a gasket, not getting anywhere, emitting fumes and resembling a particularly unloved Trabant.’ More, more!

    On a serious note: let Assange go. I’m not much impressed by the Orange Man Bad defence, but I think it’s irrelevant. This whole case stinks, from the fake Swedish charges onwards. He’s already served years of imprisonment in the Ecuadorian Embassy. Let the bugger go!

  • Kaiama

    The fact that even the prosecution is being limited in cross examination of witnesses, shows that it is not important for the outcome. They really just want to limit the gory details and rubber stamp the extradition request. They know it will be appealed anyway all the way to the supreme court. I actually believe that Lewis’s moaning about not having enough time will actually help with the grounds for appeal as the defence are getting much less time than the prosecution.

  • Stewart

    If we know anything for certain, it is that the elites of both the US and the UK want very badly to get rid of Trump.
    Perhaps this prosecution is “at the behest” of trump personally but, as I’ve stated before, with his country on fire (both literally and metaphorically) and an election looming, I find it hard to believe that the orange man has much interest in this trial, if any.

    A more likely scenario to me is that he was “persuaded” to give the go-ahead for this crazy prosecution, unaware that it will purposefully fail just before the election; he can thus be portrayed, both in the US and here, as cruel and vindictive but, more importantly for the elites, as a LOSER – Biden will be able to make much political capital from this scenario.

    I don’t think the US or the UK has anything to gain from turning Assange in to an international martyr and focusing attention on Wikileaks again, quite the opposite.

    Pure speculation of course, but it would go some way towards explaining James Lewis’s frankly bizarre behaviour – no-one is going to bother with examining the prosecution case very closely if, ultimately, they lose.

    Another commentator called the trial a “Punch and Judy show” – this might be close to the truth, with Julian (as Punch) winning through in the end?

  • Jo

    The trial is for up to 6 weeks?????? Hope you have a back up plan for your most excellent reporting should you be unwell or eg catch a virus…….

  • Courtenay Barnett

    Mr. Murray,

    “James Lewis QC’s touting for business webpage describes him as “the Rolls Royce of advocates”. I suppose that is true, in the sense of foreign owned. Yet here he was before us, blowing a gasket, not getting anywhere, emitting fumes and resembling a particularly unloved Trabant.”

    Now this sounds like you are doing ‘a Lewis’ on Lewis.

    I am over thirty years of active practice in the courts and I assure that proper prosecutorial work in court is not done in that way.

    • Ingwe

      @Courtenay Barnett-likewise, a not inconsiderable proportion of my practicing life has been spent in courts.
      The most effective advocates have, invariably, been fastidiously courteous in their cross-examination. in fact there is clear inverse ‘law’; the ruder the advocate the least effective they are.

      • Courtenay Barnett

        Ingwe,

        Lewis is frustrated when he comes upon a witness with deep knowledge of his subject area and possessed of impressive intellect.

        He could score some legitimate points by demonstrating that some aspects of the witness statement failed to address pertinent and relevant issues which an expert ought to have considered. However, that would require a keen eye, deep knowledge and skillful delivery.

        Rather, as a true ‘bully boy’ he is trying to dominate and belittle the witness. Never a good tactic – especially in a jury trial. Alas – we have but a Magistrate presiding and no real ‘public gallery’.

  • Republicofscotland

    Sounds to me as though QC Lewis, is trying to convince the other Lewis, and the viewers and the court, that the Colorado maximum security prison will be a bit of a hotel for Assange, and that Assange might not get such a long sentence because others didn’t. Of course we all know that if they get their sweaty hands on Assange he’ll be locked up in solitary confinement for the rest of his days.

    • Bayard

      Reminds me of the slave-owners’ attempts, when faced with the abolition of slavery, to portray the slaves’ lives as one long holiday in the sun.

  • mairi morrison

    Julian is in the dock not because of Donald Trump’s goals or his base. The problem is that he does not have a strong hold on his DOJ. There have always been civil servants in the DOJ who wanted to get Julian and during the chaos of the Trump administration that camp was able to get their wish. Sadly, despite the fact that many of Trump’s base are anti-war and support Assange they are not the wing that Trump feels a need to pander.

  • fwl

    If Gareth Bale were a judge (or a retired judge) he would not be a deputy High Court Judge (though I see where your coming from there) – he would be Jonathan Sumption.

  • Trevor Sproston

    Thank-you for your unflinching contribution to society in the pursuit of justice in a clearly & shamefully corrupt British legal system. You are making a difference without which, there would be none.

1 2