NEW INDICTMENT AGAINST J ASSANGE

E. put this in a great format today; much quicker, easier to work with.

I think I have it all and in order, but when I got up today I looked like this:

NO!  I do not normally look like that!  heheh.

Here.  Wanna kiss?
NO?  LOL.

So, as I wouldn't mind throwing up,  am shivering, and in pain, I will check my copying later!  K? K.  If yiu  see a mistake, post it and I'll get it later.  Tanks!
(U mite remember the tooth I yanked.  It finally found it's revenge. ;0 )

16 September

Today's first witness is John Goetz, who was present during the Guardian interviews and refutes claims that JA said "informants deserve to die". His testimony is expected to be shorter than previous witnesses. Below is his signed affidavit on the matter.


Proceedings are ready to start.
Witness is already video linked in, here is hoping all goes well with the feed for once.
#AssangeCase

Goetz opens talking about his background. He is an award winning investigative reporter for Der Spiegal (Germany), who met with Assange in 2010 over information on the Afghanistan war.


Together, he and Assange researched the Afghan War Logs, leading to the revelation of a secret US military assassination team.


Goetz says Assange forced everyone to use encrypted devices and was extremely concerned about making sure names were properly redacted so no one came to any harm.


Through the NYT, they contacted White House admin and redacted over 15,000 documents in order to protect innocent people. 


Goetz says Der Spiegal published first with other outlets following *before* wikileaks published them, and to his knowledge; no one was able to obtain sensitive names through this process.


Goetz says that, so concerned was WL about innocent people being harmed, that they ended up delaying publishing materials on Iraq due to the numerous amount of redactions they made.


By the time WL had released the Iraq War Logs, quite a few of their redacted documents had been released in full by the U.S. government, unredacted. 


Goetz is now discussing his work in 2011 on behalf of Khaled El-Masri, who was kidnapped and tortured by the CIA in Macedonia, although he was innocent of any charge. An estimated 3000 were kidnapped and tortured by the CIA between 2001 and 2005.

@ETheFriend
1h


In the event the Judge rules against hearing the El-Masri testimony. I want to make sure you do.
So here is El-Masri, an innocent german citizen, describing a bit of his experience being kidnapped and tortured by the CIA.


https://twitter.com/ETheFriend/status/1306216557975044097 1 min 30 sec.

(Remember-he was innocent)
In this testimony:
- he says he thought of Guantanamo.  (?)  (time of this interview is 2010, so...)
- that he was interrogated by a man with a South Lebanese accent.
- Not so strange perhaps.  It sounds like he was from Lebanon originally.
- I'm just curious why he was grabbed. Who was he, what was his life at
the time. 
- big revelations on Afghanistan here. (Flynn knows?)
In May 2004, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, Daniel R. Coats, convinced the German interior minister, Otto Schily, not to press charges or to reveal the program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hh-877s01U

Again, I want to thank the wonderful handful of reporters who are helping cover the Assange Trial. Without you, Julian would be lost.

To all those sharing the court reporting and spreading the news, you are helping us shine a bright light on a great injustice.

Thank you.
-----------------------

E. counts Julian as a friend. You can too. Take it personally; it is. Every person who stands up to bring Truth into the dark places labors with sacrifice not for themselves but for humanity; for God, family and country and you and what you hold dear. Don't allow the devil free range over the world. That's not why we're here.

@ETheFriend
2h
Collateral Murder: the video that WL released showing targeted civilian assassinations, murdering of journalists, and troops laughing as they gunned down children. 

Being discussed today in Assange Trial.

@ETheFriend
2h
Its only a decade old. and those wars are STILL going on.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
me:
Watch here and skip youtube's attempt to have you not go through the steps to watch it:

https://twitter.com/ETheFriend/status/1306232830507261952

We have an alternate reporter today, https://twitter.com/DefenseAssange/status/1306515556024160257
DefenseAssange
The U.S. Committee to Defend Julian Assange and Civil Liberties is a national coalition fighting to free WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

------------------------------------
Yesterday we heard from Dan Ellsberg, on his experience under the Espionage Act:

"I did not have a fair trial, no one since me had a fair trial on these charges, and Julian Assange cannot remotely get a fair trial under those charges if he were tried.”

---------------------------------------------
We also heard from John Goetz, who spoke about WikiLeaks' harm-minimization process of redactions and who explained that Guardian journalists' publishing of a password in their book was to blame for unredacted cables being released





First up is John Sloboda, being sworn in now, from Iraq Body Count 
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/


Iraq Body Count is an independent NGO, continuously counting civilian deaths in Iraq. Says killing civilians is a war crime.


Tracking civilian deaths gives dignity to the dead, and it's a fundamental human need to know how one's loved one died.


Sloboda: the public recognition of these deaths, name by name, is what we would all aspire to


Before Iraq War Logs, the body count was based on global media reports. From around 2000, search engines became so powerful that it became easier to source all publicly available information about deaths in Iraq for posterity


The Iraq War Logs was the single largest contribution to knowledge about civilian casualties in Iraq. Revealed approximately 15,000 previously unknown civilian deaths.


The war logs gave meticulous detail, sometimes included names of the dead. Was able to cross-check the Body Count's logs with the WikiLeaks logs to discover uncounted casualties


Mr Assange was "absolutely welcoming" of working together with Iraq Body Count, decided to create media partnership to perform serious analysis before they were released to the public


Impressed upon us that Assange's aim was a very stringent redaction of the logs, to ensure no information that could be damaging to living individuals would be released. Not feasible to do this by hand, so sought a method to do this technically


Saboda's colleague came up with a method to do that: automatically remove all words not in a standard English dictionary (to ensure names were removed). This removed useful acronyms so we had to go back and unredact those.


But then we also went through and redacted occupations, as these could be identifying. This process took weeks, was painstaking. Considerable pressures on Assange and WL to hurry up because partners wanted to publish.


Those pressures were consistently rejected -- they could not be published until the redactions were completed

Each of these cases were highly politicized, involved the president and the attorney general

Why is it that, despite 11 cases investigating the press for publishing classified info, there has never been an indictment?

The First Amendment - outcry from the press, no coherent way to draw a line between the media outlets who published and others, no limiting principle

From Shenkman's statement: "There has never, in the century-long history of the Espionage Act, been an indictment of a U.S. publisher under the law for the publication of secrets."

Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court rejected 'prior restraint', could not restrain the NYT from publishing

In US v Morison, Judge Harvie Wilkinson: “press organizations . . . are not being, and probably could not be, prosecuted under the espionage statute." He warned
of the “staggering breadth” of the Act

Political/media climate in 2010. Leaking is encouraged, journalists wouldn't expect to be prosecuted under Esp. Act, belief that the First Amendment protect

In 2013, the position changed, by then there were several prosecutions of leakers under the Act, journalists started to fear it. Search warrant for journalist James Rosen as a co-conspirator of Stephen Kim. But fears were dialed back when Holder talked about his regrets

Shenkman statement: "In Oct. 2014, after Holder announced his intention to resign as Attorney General, he told C-SPAN that the greatest regret of his tenure was his department’s affidavit characterizing James Rosen as a suspected co-conspirator in violation of the Espionage Act."

End of defense questioning. Now Florence Iveson cross-examining Shenkman for the prosecution. #AssangeCase

Correction, Claire Dobbin questioning for the prosecution
--

Establishing that Shenkman worked for Michael Ratner, whose office provided advice to Mr Assange. Shenkman is not working for the defense, is giving his expert testimony independently

Claire Dobbin questioning for the prosecution


Brief recess while they try to ensure Shenkman has the prosecution's bundle -- apparently sent to him at 9am London time today (Shenkman is in the U.S.)

(prosecution has done this with every witness for the defense)

During recess they will discuss  among other things, Shenkman's co-authored article in The Nation from Feb. 2016:
"It’s Been Two Weeks Since a UN Panel Declared That Julian Assange Should Be Freed. Why Is He Still Detained?"

The Nation byline lists Shenkman as 'a First Amendment and human rights lawyer, and member of Julian Assange's legal team.' -- Shenkman says he didn't write the byline, wouldn't say it's false but would qualify it, he was working for Ratner

Dobbin: So in what scope were you representing Assange? 


I was working for Mr Ratner, not in a criminal proceeding - in this was commenting on the question of detention in the European Court of Human Rights




The article's headline represents your opinion that the UK was arbitrarily detaining Mr Assange?

That was my position with respect to ECHR, I know it was contentious

Believe he was a victim of arbitrary detention?


That's right, I'm a human rights lawyer, UK and US have violated human rights obligations, don't think that's particularly controversial

Prosecution trying to establish Shenkman's opinions on Assange at the time of the article, Shenkman questioning the relevance, says his submission is about a historical and academic analysis, I have an interest in providing an accurate and unbiased analysis


I can talk about that piece but I don't want to waste your time, want to probe your thinking on why you're asking about that


Prosec: that will become clear Mr Shenkman, but want you to be clear that we need to test whether your opinion, even if academic, is balanced & objective


Shenkman: I understand that but in my submission I don't talk about the working group on arbitrary detention, we accept that prosecutors become judges and remain objective. I'm open about my opinion

Prosec: I'm going to test whether you've been objective in your analysis of the Espionage Act



Prosec cites article, "If [Assange left the embassy], he would be arrested and almost certainly extradited to the United States, where he would face persecution and inhumane treatment."

and "As confirmed by the Justice Department in federal court in December, the United States has been pursuing an unprecedented investigation of WikiLeaks—one that press freedom organizations have warned could gut the core of the First Amendment."

Friday  18 September 2020

Julian Assange's extradition hearing thread. This morning's witness is Nicholas Hager, a New Zealand journalist with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

Hager reported on New Zealand cables in the WikiLeaks files. Says leaked classified documents are essential to journalism

On every controversial story I've written, governments claim there will be harm as a result. After these accusations, some years pass and I later learn the military are reading my books


Talking about Afghan war files. Read about aid and reconstruction operations that turned out to be psychological operations, e.g., I was able to give a layer by layer explanation of the Afghan war.


It is virtually impossible to write about war without information the government says is sensitive. 


Exactly the sort of information citizens need to know what their governments are doing. Some of the most important material I've ever used in my life

Collateral Murder video - likens to the video of George Floyd. Profound effect on the public. Followed, importantly, by the war logs, the effect was to electrify the world for the first time to the civilian casualties in the war


Talking about the 'deliberately slow' process to prepare files, redacting, very cautious. My main memory is a team of people working hour after hour in silence, I was very pleased to see the level of care that was being taken


I've become so tired of the news I've seen since -- the picture I got of him was completely different than the picture portrayed in the media. My view is that he's very principled, devoted himself to trying to make a difference in the world.


What principle animates his work? 


An inspired idea, his vision, in an era where secrecy was overtaking publics, that the digital age might enable a new kind of whistleblower to inform the public

My view is the war logs and cables, much like the Pentagon Papers 40 years earlier, were the disclosures their era required


End of defense questioning, now James Lewis cross-examining for the prosecution

Julian speaks up from the dock: "I will not censor a torture victim's statement to this court. I am trying to convey those instructions clearly. I will not accept that."

Judge tells Assange to be quiet again.


Appears they will provide the gist of el-Masri's statement rather than have him testify live. Intepreter had been in courtroom, she's dismissed


Defense lawyer Mark Summers begins talking about el-Masri's statements, stops, says he's been instructed to stop. Brief recess.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Jones  @CharlieDanJones
· 2h
US lawyer: We see no utility whatsoever in having Mr el-Masri in court. None whatsoever.

Julian Assange stands up: Madam I will not accept you sensoring a torture victim’s statement to this court.

Judge: you are represented.

Assange: I have tried to convey those instructions. twitter.com/courtnewsuk/st…
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Court resumes. Mark Summers for the defense is reading from el-Masri's statement. Disturbing details of his kidnapping and torture by the CIA. Sodomized, dressed in a nappy, force-fed through a tube

Statement of Khaled el-Masri: http://defend.wikileaks.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Khaled-el-Masri.pdf…
(me: will be linked in 1st Amend. thread)

Summers still reading from statement. A court ruled his detention and rendition were unjustified, but there has been no justice for the U.S.

Cites ACLU attempting to intervene in his case (https://aclu.org/blog/national-security/torture/new-cia-torture-documents-confirm-chilling-details-khaled-el-masris…)
(1st Amend. thread)

Cites Mike Pompeo threatening anyone who cooperates with ICC investigation into US

From March 2020: "Bashing Probe of US War Crimes, Pompeo Threatens Family of ICC Staff With Consequences"
(1st Amend. thread)


Recess now for lunch. Back at 2pm London time, when Carey Shenkman will resume testimony

Dobbin: In your report do you refer to the fact that the Act has been refined due to judicial interpretation?

When you say 'the fact' there's been interpretation but there's dispute in the scholarship as to whether that could be called refinement.

For one thing the term national defense information has been subject to much interpretation. I don't think scholars would say that's been refined in the sense that it's been narrowed, if anything some of these terms have been broadened

Again Carey Shenkman's statement is here: https://defend.wikileaks.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Carey-Shenkman.pdf…

Dobbin goes to case of US v Morison. Assures the govt cannot abuse the statute -- can only be used where there is a case for secrecy

US v Rosen: https://fas.org/sgp/jud/rosen080906.pdf…

US v Morison: [size=0]https://opengovva.org/foi-opinions/united-states-v-morison…

Prosecution saying these cases show the Esp Act can't be abused, only used for nat'l defense info[/size]

Shenkman: there's lots of scholarship, including Benkler, post-2010, on this

The problem with your citation is it only deals with one phrase in the Act. That has been disputed and isn't agreed but there are overbreadth arguments that deal with many more issues within the Act

Same legal standard is cumbersomely applied to all these different categories, and there hasn't been a case like this one, all these deal with gov't insiders, closest one is oral transmission but they don't address speaking to the media and therefore don't take 1st Amend concerns

Dobbin: I'm not going to go further because your report says the executive decides the scope of info protected and that's obviously wrong

Shenkman: it isn't, various aspects here are result of executive decision.

Law does not prohibit application of this law against mainstream media, as well as individuals sharing that information on social media, even retweeting

Shenkman: I'm talking about the chilling effect that this prosecution has on the media, that's all due to the breadth and overuse of this law

Says the decision to bring this is itself political

Dobbin moves on, do you accept section 793 of the Esp Act provides room to prosecute beyond classical espionage

Shenkman: I don't think any scholar would make a single claim about the original intent of the law when there has been dispute

Shenkman distinguishes between congress in 1917 and 1950 (when the law was amended) vs the court of appeals in Morison, says these are separate questions

Dobbin still trying to get Shenkman to comment on the intent of the Act. Shenkman repeatedly saying these are incredibly contentious issues with 100s of pages of scholarship, not an agreed issue.

Shenkman also reminding court repeatedly that the cases Dobbin is citing don't deal with passing information to the media so can't be considered an unambiguous interpretation to be applied to all cases

Shenkman: I don't think any of the scholars I've referenced here would agree on a yes or no on the questions you're asking.

Shenkman talks about the "significant chilling effect" that these cases have brought about, so no I don't agree they show restraint, if anything the Nixon tapes show these cases were used to send a message

Shenkman: Successful prosecution is not all you need to instill a chilling effect on the press, the attempt is enough in some cases

Shenkman: Not even just about media, this law can be used against anyone

Shenkman citing Pentagon Papers being read into the congressional record (believe by Mike Gravel) as a precursor to WikiLeaks' desire to have full archives on the record

Final questioning: You also say the CFAA is extremely overbroad? Yes

Cite Professor Orin? Yes

You understand that what Prof Orin says is clear beyond doubt constituting hacking is the same as what's alleged against Mr Assange?

No I don't, and that's not exactly what the professor says

Shenkman cites Prof Orin Kerr's comment on the CFAA charge against Assange from April 11 2019 here, thinks it contradicts what Dobbin said that Kerr believes:


Quote Tweet

  Orin Kerr  @OrinKerr 
Apr 11, 2019
A few quick thoughts on the legal theory of the unsealed Julian Assange indictment, with more to come at @lawfareblog later. (Thread.) http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/11/assange_indictment_0_0.pdf…
Show this thread





Dobbin: I think it's extremely clear that he'd agree what's alleged against Assange would constitute hacking

Shenkman: well you can take his words in 2010 or in 2019...

End of cross-examination


Defense re-examination, establishes no Top Secret info in this case.

Taking Shenkman back through some cases he cited.


Discussing BARTNICKI v. VOPPER [size=0]https://law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1687.ZS.html…

Says the press can't engage in separate and distinct illegal activity. Does not deal with newsgathering, i.e. where the conduct was connected to eventual publication[/size]

Grand juries looking into media for Espionage Act violations have never before this case produced an indictment, precisely because of the First Amendment concerns


Never been indictment of the press under 793 -- follows that there's never been an indictment under 793 of a *foreign* press as well

How foreseeable would it have been in 2010 that a foreign publisher could be indicted under the Espionage Act for publishing?

Completely unforeseeable

Common theme among attempts to prosecute? When publishing something contradicting policy of USG

End of live testimony for today. Figuring out who will testify on Monday. #AssangeCase

Issue of transcripts -- 10-minute recess for parties to consider whether they want a ruling on releasing transcripts or whether it's just a matter between defense and prosecution

Shenkman's complete answer on themes of these investigations:


Quote Tweet

  Mary Kostakidis @MaryKostakidis
· 1h
Carey: common theme for context: they don’t support the administrations policies, are revealing misconduct or revealing information contrary to what the administration is revealing.
Carey finished
Show this thread


Back from recess. Ed Fitzgerald to read witness statement from Dean Yates

Dean Yates was Baghdad bureau chief for Reuters at the time of the incidents depicted in Collateral Murder, in which two Reuters journalists were killed by U.S. gunmen



Dean Yates in June 2020: "'All lies': how the US military covered up gunning down two journalists in Iraq"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/15/all-lies-how-the-us-military-covered-up-gunning-down-two-journalists-in-iraq

MONDAY 21 SEPT 2020

First up today is Prof. Christian Grothoff, testifying by remote video on the publication of the unredacted cables, being sworn in now.

Grothoff is testifying about his research into the publication, using materials publicly available at the time. Mark Summers for the defense taking Grothoff through the timeline, starting with Guardian's David Leigh receiving the encrypted files in summer 2010


Strength of encryption at the time: the files were encrypted by a password -- found in Luke Harding & David Leigh's book -- long enough that computer-automated attempts to crack it by were 'prohibitive'


The encrypted file -- once it was someone else's hands, couldn't change the encryption key to unlock it that'd work on each version


Grothoff discusses the Nov. 2010 DDOS attack on WikiLeaks, unknown hackers made the website more difficult or unable to be accessed. As a result, many mirrors of the site were put online


Grothoff's submissions to the court include many examples of mirrored versions of the site -- not particularly difficult to create a mirror


Some mirrors included the unredacted cables in encrypted forms (inaccessible without the password) though the majority didn't


Timeline: David Leigh [& Luke Harding] publish passcode as a title of a chapter that would unlock the encrypted files, mirrored sites are online


At this point WikiLeaks could not take down the mirrored sites. Could not change the password already out there



Anything they could do to prevent the unredacted cables being published?

Distract, delay

Before August 2011, no one publicly put the encrypted file and password together. Then Aug 25th, Die Freitag published an article online -- didn't publish the password or where to find the cables, but published enough info to put them together to find and decrypt the file


Before that article some may have read the Guardian book and assumed the password wouldn't work, but with this article they may have been "encouraged to try"


WikiLeaks advertised some mirrors of the site - of those advertised, none had the file with unredacted cables able to be discovered. So someone had to use the password via different mirrors


Talking about Cryptome -- well-known leak site, known before WikiLeaks, anyone familiar with these topics would've known about it


Pirate Bay on 31 Aug posted the BitTorrent of the files - not posting the files but making people aware that they exist


On 1 September, the US Government accessed the files via Pirate Bay's torrent


Cryptome is based in the United States, Pirate Bay on a shared international server. Materials are still available on Cryptome. Cryptome has never been prosecuted with publishing the files


WikiLeaks made the unredacted cache available *after* they were available on the other sites, on 2nd September 2011


The materials at that time were already available online "in a way that was virtually impossible to stop"


End of defense questioning. Now Joel Smith cross-examining for the prosecution.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1307964136014385152.html
Our source has switched to a more narrative format.

Back from recess. Jakob Augstein is unavailable at the moment. Defense is prepared to call Andy Worthington, but the prosecution complains that they only heard that he may testify this morning. 


Prosecution says their position is similar to that regarding el-Masri's statement, they don't want to stipulate things like political determinations. Defense explaining Worthington's statement includes that other courts found that Guantanamo detainees have been tortured 

Defense doesn't need this court to determine they were tortured, but wants it to accept that other courts have determined that -- this is linked to the defense's argument that these results were in the public interest 
Prosecution: "our position is that it's completely irrelevant" 

Still debating what the parties can agree to in the statement. Prosecution says the US wasn't a party to the Strausberg quote. Defense notes it's included in the Senate Torture Report too. 

Defense also notes that Worthington's statement includes the fact that the Telegraph published GTMO detainee assessment briefs before WikiLeaks. Prosecution disagrees on the chronology, so Worthington will have to be called. Judge says he can be asked about just that portion. 

Trying to prevent future delays/scheduling issues, we may soon have a recess for the parties to reach agreements about witnesses and the schedule. Defense references a statement from Cassandra Fairbanks, unclear if it's been agreed to yet. 

Prosecutor Lewis: many of these witnesses are very repetitive. If they were all witnesses talking about different things, we'd move faster.

Judge won't comment on a critique of the defense witness list.

Then prosecution says it's unclear what some of them are testifying about 
Lewis then again complains witnesses give "long complex answers."

Half-hour recess now as they try to sort more testimony agreement and witness schedule privately. Fairbanks' statement will likely be read after the break. 
Back from recess, turns out they need more time to discuss and agree on witnesses. So we've adjourned again until 4pm London time. #AssangeCase 


Back from recess. Fairbanks' statement can be read but both parties will make a statement as to its significance. 
Prosecution says the truth of what Arthur Schwartz told her, Fairbanks is not in a position to verify. Also wish to question her impartiality 

Defense says her testimony is evidence of the declared intentions of those at the top who planned the prosecution and eviction from the embassy

Defense accepts that she is a supporter of Assange, but looking at the content makes the point moot, what she says is true regardless


Fairbanks' statement will be summarized


Fairbanks: I'm a journalist in DC, was employed by Gateway Pundit which is generally pro-Trump, I've endorsed his presidency. I'm a strong supporter of Assange & WikiLeaks, my work has involved investigation and promotion of many liberal and libertarian causes


Fairbanks: I was involved in a DM group with people who worked for or were close to Trump, including German Ambassador Richard Grenell and Arthur Schwartz



Schwartz told her that the USG would go after Assange for the Manning leaks, would go after Manning to testify, would go into the embassy to get Assange, would not pursue the death penalty

Fairbanks then went to the Embassy, in Jan and March 2019. Had to try to hide from cameras/mics in the first visit but the latter visit was worse, treated like a prisoner. Then 2 weeks later Assange was arrested

Schwartz told her that Assange & Manning & all involved with WikiLeaks deserved the death penalty. That Grenell was involved in a deal to get Assange evicted from the embassy

Fairbanks tweeted that Grenell was involved in Assange's arrest - said she got the information from an ABC News article but Schwartz tried to get her to delete the tweet, that he could go to jail


Schwartz informed me that in coordinating for Assange to be removed from the Embassy, Ambassador Grenell had done so on direct “orders from the President”.


Fairbanks: I now consider steps taken at the March 2019 meeting were being taken because of knowledge of the previous meeting I had with Assange during which I had given him valuable information.


"I believe that the contents of that meeting had been fed directly back to the US authorities and, those with close connections, including Arthur Schwartz."


End of Fairbanks statement, though the defense may at some point play the recording of the call with Schwartz


End of proceedings for today. Back at tomorrow 10am London time. #AssangeCase

--------------------------------------------------
(me-Grenell?  Great...    )

Lewis continues to ask why various factors weren't in his report. Kopelman says his report is already quite long, you could always find things I've left out that you think should be there, I found those to be administrative factors and tried to include psychiatric factors

Lewis trying to undermine Assange's suicidal ideation (but earlier he didn't recognize the word "ideation"). Kopelman pushing back against questions of his expertise and why every comment on his mental state wasn't included. "I don't pretend to have put every single comment in"

(Not including each bit of discussion, for Julian's privacy and because it's redundant of the above, Lewis bringing up a range of stray comments, Kopelman explaining that the report is a summary, not a full record of every possible item)


Kopelman referring to Julian declining to report some ideations for fear of being placed in solitary confinement



Lewis trying to suggest Kopelman might "change his mind about [his] diagnosis", Kopelman suggests they're minor factors, he's not going to change his diagnosis based on them 

Discussion whether Julian fearing conversations being recorded consitute delusions, Kopelman considers the fears to be rational due to Assange's experiences in the Embasy 

Long exchange over Assange's psychiatric history, medical evaluations. Now we break for lunch. Cross-examination continues at 2pm London time. #AssangeCase