Wednesday, September 09, 2020

Bottle twist

"Julian Assange, Prometheus Bound" (Escobar).

"Your Man in the Public Gallery: the Assange Hearing Day 6" (Murray):
"At the end of the day I had the opportunity to speak to an extremely distinguished and well-known lawyer on the subject of Baraitser bringing pre-written judgements into court, prepared before she had heard the lawyers argue the case before her. I understood she already had seen the outline written arguments, but surely this was wrong. What was the point in the lawyers arguing for hours if the judgement was pre-written? What I really wanted to know was how far this was normal practice.
The lawyer replied to me that it absolutely was not normal practice, it was totally outrageous. In a long and distinguished career, this lawyer had very occasionally seen it done, even in the High Court, but there was always some effort to disguise the fact, perhaps by inserting some reference to points made orally in the courtroom. Baraitser was just blatant. The question was, of course, whether it was her own pre-written judgement she was reading out, or something she had been given from on high."
The backroom CIA guys have written the judgments of the 'judge' so she will have them ready on her laptop as needed, thus avoiding the unspeakable mistake of conceding one jot or tittle to the defence.  It appears that the 'judge' has been instructed that if she allows the defence even one argument she will be found dead floating in the Thames the next morning.  And (my emphasis in red):
"As the court resumed, Mark Summers for the defence stood up with a bombshell.
Summers said that the defence “recognised” the judgement Baraitser had just made – a very careful choice of word, as opposed to “respected” which might seem more natural. As she had ruled that the remedy to lack of time was more time, the defence was applying for an adjournment to enable them to prepare the answers to the new charges. They did not do this lightly, as Mr Assange would continue in prison in very difficult conditions during the adjournment.
Summers said the defence was simply not in a position to gather the evidence to respond to the new charges in a few short weeks, a situation made even worse by Covid restrictions. It was true that on 14 August Baraitser had offered an adjournment and on 21 August they had refused the offer. But in that period of time, Mr Assange had not had access to the new charges and they had not fully realised the extent to which these were a standalone new case. To this date, Assange had still not received the new prosecution Opening Note in prison, which was a crucial document in setting out the significance of the new charges.
Baraitser pointedly asked whether the defence could speak to Assange in prison by telephone. Summers replied yes, but these were extremely short conversations. They could not phone Mr Assange; he could only call out very briefly on the prison payphone to somebody’s mobile, and the rest of the team would have to try to gather round to listen. It was not possible in these very brief discussions adequately to expound complex material. Between 14 and 21 August they had been able to have only two such very short phone calls. The defence could only send documents to Mr Assange through the post to the prison; he was not always given them, or allowed to keep them.
Baraitser asked how long an adjournment was being requested. Summers replied until January.
For the US government, James Lewis QC replied that more scrutiny was needed of this request. The new matters in the indictment were purely criminal. They do not affect the arguments about the political nature of the case, or affect most of the witnesses. If more time were granted, “with the history of this case, we will just be presented with a sleigh of other material which will have no bearing on the small expansion of count 2”.
Baraitser adjourned the court “for ten minutes” while she went out to consider her judgement. In fact she took much longer. When she returned she looked peculiarly strained.
Baraitser ruled that on 14 August she had given the defence the opportunity to apply for an adjournment, and given them seven days to decide. On 21 August the defence had replied they did not want an adjournment. They had not replied that they had insufficient time to consider. Even today the defence had not applied to adjourn but rather had applied to excise charges. They “cannot have been surprised by my decision” against that application. Therefore they must have been prepared to proceed with the hearing. Their objections were not based on new circumstance. The conditions of Assange in Belmarsh had not changed since 21 August. They had therefore missed their chance and the motion to adjourn was refused.
The courtroom atmosphere was now highly charged. Having in the morning refused to cut out the superseding indictment on the grounds that the remedy for lack of time should be more time, Baraitser was now refusing to give more time. The defence had called her bluff; the state had apparently been confident that the effective solitary confinement in Belmarsh was so terrible that Assange would not request more time. I rather suspect that Julian was himself bluffing, and made the call at lunchtime to request more time in the full expectation that it would be refused, and the rank hypocrisy of the proceedings exposed.
I previously blogged about how the procedural trickery of the superseding indictment being used to replace the failing second indictment – as Smith said for the prosecution “before it failed” – was something that sickened the soul. Today in the courtroom you could smell the sulphur."
The preposterous, frankly embarrassing, bias of the 'judge' is not a bug, it is a feature, as it is to demonstrate the absolute fealty of the entire country to the CIA.  All Brits bow down to the ground and exclaim 'we are your slaves and abject servants, Oh Gracious Langley'.

"Assange’s Second Day at the Old Bailey: Torture, Drone Strikes and Journalism" (Kampmark).  "DAY TWO OF ASSANGE HEARING: US Tries to Narrow its Espionage Charge to Only Naming Informants; Defense Witness Crumbles Under Cross Examination" (Consortium News).

"At Least 37 Million People Displaced by US War on Terror, Study Finds".  Wars For The Jews.  The Khazars have a phrase for 37 million displaced persons, 'a good start', something for President Biden to build on.

'Langley' at his most nitpicky:  "Did the US War on Terror Displace 37 Million?" (Cole).

Crafty Russian doctors kept samples of Navalny tissues, clean of Novichok, potentially embarrassing the hell out of the German warmongering liars, so the Asshole PR specialists had to scramble to come up with the 'bottle twist':  "Navalny False-Flag Authors Invent New Twist to Cover Lies" (Cunningham).

Morally incoherent:  "Trump Disses Troops but Correctly Labels 2 of America’s Costliest Wars Unjustified or ‘Stupid’" (Lindhoff).  Trump, of course, would be 100% correct to mock the troops, and the fact that anti-war people still maintain that the sheeple are somehow protected from the immorality of their actions is one of the things that makes me most angry.  This moral abyss is why anti-war types never get anywhere.  All Wars For the Jews are deeply Evil, as is anybody who participates in them (how could it be any other way?).  Of course, the entire basis of the story is highly suspect, coming from one of the most famous of the warmongering Khazar liars whose lies led to the attack on Iraq.  The concentration camp guard now lies for Never Trumpers.

Trump is the first Assholian President since Carter not to start a War For The Jews, although he has been a big Droner For The Jews, and Sanctioner For The Jews (and Sanctions For The Jews are just as deadly as bombs).  Some Norwegian has nominated Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize, based largely on the Israel-UAE peace deal (!), but a strong argument could easily be made that he is far more worthy of the prize than a mass murderer and mass warmonger like Barry.

"Saudi purge: Why Mohammed bin Salman can never rest" (Hearst).  It is like what always seems to happen in a series of events that leads to a leader losing his head.  At some point the people who haven't been fired, tortured, imprisoned or executed get together and decide they are all going to be eliminated if they don't deal with their common problem.  The fear of waiting to be killed eventually overwhelms the fear of doing anything to avoid being killed.

"Is BLM the Mask Behind Which the Oligarchs Operate??" (Whitney).  The comments name the Jew.  It is too convoluted a conspiracy - Soros is just trying to get rid of Trump, and everything will just disappear in November if Biden wins.

It is very entertaining to watch the (((media))) and see some clown talking about 'mostly peaceful' protests in front of a background which looks like something out of Bosch:  "Riots? What Riots?" (Sailer).  It is no less enjoyable to watch (((them))) call Soros Employees of the Month 'white supremacists'.

blog comments powered by Disqus