theduran--2020-02-26--Highlights from the Assange Trial Thus Far

Here are the most informative excerpts that I have noted from the best news-reporting from journalists who have been attending at the trial : For the defence , Mark Summers QC stated that the USA charges were entirely dependent on three factual accusations of Assange behviour : Summers stated this was a provably false allegation from the evidence of the Manning court-martial .
Summers stated this was provably wrong from information available to the public Summers stated this was provably wrong both from publicly available information and from specific involvement of the US government .
In summary , Summers stated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being made were false as to fact , and they were demonstrably made in bad faith .
This was therefore an abuse of process which should lead to dismissal of the extradition request .
… This comprehensive account took some four hours and I shall not attempt to capture it here .
I will rather give highlights .
… On 1 ) Summers at great length demonstrated conclusively that Manning had access to each material a ) b ) c ) d ) provided to Wikileaks without needing any code from Assange , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assange .
… After a brief break , Baraitser [ the judge ] came back with a real zinger .
She told Summers that he had presented the findings of the US court martial of Chelsea Manning as fact .
But she did not agree that her court had to treat evidence at a US court martial , even agreed or uncontested evidence or prosecution evidence , as fact .
… The bulk of Summers ’ argument went to refuting behaviour 3 ) , putting lives at risk .
… Summers described at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media partners over more than a year to set up a massive redaction campaign on the cables .
He explained that the unredacted cables only became available after Luke Harding and David Leigh of the Guardian published the password to the cache as the heading to Chapter XI of their book , Wikileaks , published in February 2011 .
… Summers read from the transcripts of telephone conversations as Assange and Harrison [ both of Wikileaks ] had attempted to convince US officials of the urgency of enabling source protection procedures – and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This evidence utterly undermined the US government ’ s case and proved bad faith in omitting extremely relevant fact .
It was a very striking moment .
Julian Assange tried to warn the US government that sensitive documents were to be leaked “ imminently , ” but was told to call back in a few hours , according to his lawyers during the second day of the WikiLeaks founder ’ s extradition hearing in London .
Assange personally warned the State Department that an encrypted database of 250,000 unredacted US diplomatic cables @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , his lawyer Mark Summers told Woolwich Crown Court on Tuesday .
The cables included the identities of people — some deemed high risk — who had been in communication with the US .
Assange contacted officials after it became known that German newspaper Der Freitag had discovered the password to a database containing the unredacted files , Summers said .
The 48-year-old Australian , along with WikiLeaks editor Sarah Harrison , telephoned then-Secretary of State Hilary Clinton ’ s emergency line to sound the alarm about the unredacted material , the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t understand why you ’ re not seeing the urgency in this… people ’ s lives are at risk , ” according to Summers .
But he was told to call back in a few hours , said the lawyer .
CNN reached out to the State Department for a response , but had not received one at time of publishing .
Mark Summers QC , representing Mr Assange , told the hearing in London that Wikileaks had begun redacting a tranche of 250,000 leaked cables in November 2010 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as the US government .
He said that in February 2011 the Guardian published a book about Wikileaks which contained a password to the unredacted documents .
He said it wasn ’ t until months later that it was discovered the password could be used to access the unredacted database , which was revealed by German news outlet Der Freitag on 25 August 2011 .
On that day , Mr Assange called the White House and asked to speak to then secretary of state Hillary Clinton “ as a matter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about to be dumped online by third parties who had gained access , Mr Summers told the court .
He was told to ring back in a few hours .
Mr Summers said Mr Assange had warned : “ I don ’ t understand why you ’ re not seeing the urgency of this .
“ Unless we do something , then people ’ s lives are put at risk.
” … Prosecutors argued on Monday that Mr Assange knowingly put hundreds of sources around the world at risk of torture and death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or other identifying details .
But Mr Summers told the court that the US extradition request “ boldly and brazenly ” misrepresented the facts .
He said the US government , which was involved in the redaction process , knows “ what actually occurred ” which was “ far from being a reckless , unredacted release ” .
In response , James Lewis QC , representing the US government , told the court that Mr Assange “ didn ’ t have to publish the unredacted cables ” .
“ He decided to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ searchable website , knowing that it was dangerous to do so , ” he added .
I hope that subsequently will be revealed whether or not the U.S. Government ’ s statement that Wikileaks “ didn ’ t have to publish the unredacted cables ” is true .
After Wikileaks gave the files to the media in the U.S. Government-accepted redacted version , a sequence of events occurred in which , it appears according to the Wilileaks allegations , the Guardian ’ s Luke Harding ( who is a prominent neoconservative journalist ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book was published in February 2011 ” as the Guardian ’ s book about Wikileaks was being published .
Then Der Freitag took the next step , and used that key to open the lock , and obtain access to the unredacted file .
Is the U.S. Government ignoring Assange ’ s intensive efforts to prohibit such a thing from happening ?
Is the U.S. Government ignoring Hillary Clinton ’ s role in this ?
Is Donald Trump protecting Ms. Clinton ?
Why would he be protecting her and trying to frame and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of UK , throughout this nearly ten-year-long matter , serving as the U.S. Government ’ s errand-boy ?
Is UK a democracy ?
Is U.S. a democracy ?
Craig Murray ’ s report on the trial ’ s first day provides shocking evidence that Judge Baraitser is extremely prejudiced against Assange and for the Trump Administration .
I strongly recommend his blog , as the best site covering this trial ( and as one of the really great one-person blogs on international matters , along with the “ Moon of Alabama ” ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author , most recently , of They ’ re Not Even Close : The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records , 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST ’ S VENTRILOQUISTS : The Event that Created Christianity .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Eric Zuesse
Here are the most informative excerpts that I have noted from the best news-reporting from journalists who have been attending at the trial:
CRAIG MURRAY, “Day 2”:
For the defence, Mark Summers QC stated that the USA charges were entirely dependent on three factual accusations of Assange behviour:
1) Assange helped Manning to decode a hash key to access classified material.
Summers stated this was a provably false allegation from the evidence of the Manning court-martial.
2) Assange solicited the material from Manning
Summers stated this was provably wrong from information available to the public
3) Assange knowingly put lives at risk
Summers stated this was provably wrong both from publicly available information and from specific involvement of the US government.
In summary, Summers stated the US government knew that the allegations being made were false as to fact, and they were demonstrably made in bad faith. This was therefore an abuse of process which should lead to dismissal of the extradition request. …
This comprehensive account took some four hours and I shall not attempt to capture it here. I will rather give highlights. …
On 1) Summers at great length demonstrated conclusively that Manning had access to each material a) b) c) d) provided to Wikileaks without needing any code from Assange, and had that access before ever contacting Assange. …
After a brief break, Baraitser [the judge] came back with a real zinger. She told Summers that he had presented the findings of the US court martial of Chelsea Manning as fact. But she did not agree that her court had to treat evidence at a US court martial, even agreed or uncontested evidence or prosecution evidence, as fact. …
The bulk of Summers’ argument went to refuting behaviour 3), putting lives at risk. … Summers described at great length the efforts of Wikileaks with media partners over more than a year to set up a massive redaction campaign on the cables. He explained that the unredacted cables only became available after Luke Harding and David Leigh of the Guardian published the password to the cache as the heading to Chapter XI of their book, Wikileaks, published in February 2011. …
Summers read from the transcripts of telephone conversations as Assange and Harrison [both of Wikileaks] had attempted to convince US officials of the urgency of enabling source protection procedures – and expressed their bafflement as officials stonewalled them. This evidence utterly undermined the US government’s case and proved bad faith in omitting extremely relevant fact. It was a very striking moment.
CNN, Day 2:
Julian Assange tried to warn the US government that sensitive documents were to be leaked “imminently,” but was told to call back in a few hours, according to his lawyers during the second day of the WikiLeaks founder’s extradition hearing in London.
Assange personally warned the State Department that an encrypted database of 250,000 unredacted US diplomatic cables was about to be leaked in 2011, his lawyer Mark Summers told Woolwich Crown Court on Tuesday.
The cables included the identities of people — some deemed high risk — who had been in communication with the US.
Assange contacted officials after it became known that German newspaper Der Freitag had discovered the password to a database containing the unredacted files, Summers said.
The 48-year-old Australian, along with WikiLeaks editor Sarah Harrison, telephoned then-Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s emergency line to sound the alarm about the unredacted material, the court heard.
Assange personally warned: “I don’t understand why you’re not seeing the urgency in this… people’s lives are at risk,” according to Summers.
But he was told to call back in a few hours, said the lawyer.
CNN reached out to the State Department for a response, but had not received one at time of publishing.
BBC, Day 2:
Mark Summers QC, representing Mr Assange, told the hearing in London that Wikileaks had begun redacting a tranche of 250,000 leaked cables in November 2010, working with media partners around the world as well as the US government.
He said that in February 2011 the Guardian published a book about Wikileaks which contained a password to the unredacted documents.
He said it wasn’t until months later that it was discovered the password could be used to access the unredacted database, which was revealed by German news outlet Der Freitag on 25 August 2011.
On that day, Mr Assange called the White House and asked to speak to then secretary of state Hillary Clinton “as a matter of urgency” over fears the documents were about to be dumped online by third parties who had gained access, Mr Summers told the court. He was told to ring back in a few hours.
Mr Summers said Mr Assange had warned: “I don’t understand why you’re not seeing the urgency of this.
“Unless we do something, then people’s lives are put at risk.” …
Prosecutors argued on Monday that Mr Assange knowingly put hundreds of sources around the world at risk of torture and death by publishing the unredacted documents containing names or other identifying details.
But Mr Summers told the court that the US extradition request “boldly and brazenly” misrepresented the facts.
He said the US government, which was involved in the redaction process, knows “what actually occurred” which was “far from being a reckless, unredacted release”.
In response, James Lewis QC, representing the US government, told the court that Mr Assange “didn’t have to publish the unredacted cables”.
“He decided to do so on a widely followed and easily searchable website, knowing that it was dangerous to do so,” he added.
—
MY CLOSING NOTE:
I hope that subsequently will be revealed whether or not the U.S. Government’s statement that Wikileaks “didn’t have to publish the unredacted cables” is true. After Wikileaks gave the files to the media in the U.S. Government-accepted redacted version, a sequence of events occurred in which, it appears according to the Wilileaks allegations, the Guardian’s Luke Harding (who is a prominent neoconservative journalist) caused “security being compromised when the book was published in February 2011” as the Guardian’s book about Wikileaks was being published. Then Der Freitag took the next step, and used that key to open the lock, and obtain access to the unredacted file. Is the U.S. Government ignoring Assange’s intensive efforts to prohibit such a thing from happening? Is the U.S. Government ignoring Hillary Clinton’s role in this? Is Donald Trump protecting Ms. Clinton? Why would he be protecting her and trying to frame and destroy Assange? Why is the Government of UK, throughout this nearly ten-year-long matter, serving as the U.S. Government’s errand-boy? Is UK a democracy? Is U.S. a democracy?
Craig Murray’s report on the trial’s first day provides shocking evidence that Judge Baraitser is extremely prejudiced against Assange and for the Trump Administration. I strongly recommend his blog, as the best site covering this trial (and as one of the really great one-person blogs on international matters, along with the “Moon of Alabama”).
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-26--Craig Murray’s Report on Day 2 of Assange’s Show-Trial

Magistrate Baraitser looked at Fitzgerald and stated , in a voice laced with disdain , that he had raised such matters before and she had always replied that she had no jurisdiction over the prison estate .
He should take it up with the prison authorities .
Fitzgerald remained on his feet , which drew a very definite scowl from Baraitser , and replied that of course they would do that again , but this repeated behaviour by the prison authorities threatened the ability of the defence to prepare .
He added that regardless of jurisdiction , in his experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judges to pass on comments and requests to the prison service where the conduct of the trial was affected , and that jails normally listened to magistrates sympathetically .
Baraitser flat-out denied any knowledge of such a practice , and stated that Fitzgerald should present her with written arguments setting out the case law on jurisdiction over prison conditions .
This was too much even for prosecution counsel James Lewis , who stood up to say the prosecution would also want Assange to have a fair hearing , and that he could confirm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normal practice .
Even then , Baraitser still refused to intervene with the prison .
She stated that if the prison conditions were so bad as to reach the very high bar of making a fair hearing impossible , the defence should bring a motion to dismiss the charges on those grounds .
Otherwise they should drop it .
Both prosecution and defence seemed surprised by Baraitser ’ s claim that she had not heard of what they both referred to as common practice .
Lewis may have been genuinely concerned at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment yesterday ; or he may have just had warning klaxons going off in his head screaming “ mistrial ” .
But the net result is Baraitser will attempt to do nothing to prevent Julian ’ s physical and mental abuse in jail nor to try to give him the ability to participate in his defence .
The only realistic explanation that occurs to me is that Baraitser has been warned off , because this continual mistreatment and confiscation of documents is on senior government authority .
A last small incident for me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the early hours , I was at the final queue before the entrance to the public gallery , when the name was called out of Kristin Hrnafsson , editor of Wikileaks , with whom I was talking at the time .
Kristin identified himself , and was told by the court official he was barred from the public gallery .
Now I was with Kristin throughout the entire proceedings the previous day , and he had done absolutely nothing amiss – he is rather a quiet gentleman .
When he was called for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job description – they were specifically banning the editor of Wikileaks from the trial .
Kristin asked why and was told it was a decision of the Court .
At this stage John Shipton , Julian ’ s father , announced that in this case the family members would all leave too , and they did so , walking out of the building .
They and others then started tweeting the news of the family walkout .
This appeared to cause some consternation among court officials , and fifteen minutes later Kristin was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what lay behind this .
Later in the day journalists were being briefed by officials it was simply over queue-jumping , but that seems improbable as he was removed by staff who called him by name and title , rather than had spotted him as a queue-jumper .
None of the above goes to the official matter of the case .
All of the above tells you more about the draconian nature of the political show-trial which is taking place than does the charade being enacted in the body of the court .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ drawn in to the court process and achieved the suspension of disbelief you might do in theatre , and began thinking “ Wow , this case is going well for Assange ” .
Then an event such as those recounted above kicks in , a coldness grips your heart , and you recall there is no jury here to be convinced .
I simply do not believe that anything said or proved in the courtroom can have an impact on the final verdict of this court .
So to the actual proceedings in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mark Summers QC stated that the USA charges were entirely dependent on three factual accusations of Assange behviour : 1 ) Assange helped Manning to decode a hash key to access classified material .
Summers stated this was a provably false allegation from the evidence of the Manning court-martial .
2 ) Assange solicited the material from Manning Summers stated this was provably wrong from information available to the public 3 ) Assange knowingly put lives at risk Summers stated this was provably wrong both from publicly available information and from specific involvement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Summers stated the US government knew that the allegations being made were false as to fact , and they were demonstrably made in bad faith .
This was therefore an abuse of process which should lead to dismissal of the extradition request .
He described the above three counts as “ rubbish , rubbish and rubbish ” .
Summers then walked through the facts of the case .
He said the charges from the USA divide the materials leaked by Manning to Wikileaks into three categories : a ) Diplomatic Cables b @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraq War rules of engagement d ) Afghan and Iraqi war logs Summers then methodically went through a ) , b ) , c ) and d ) relating each in turn to alleged behaviours 1 ) , 2 ) and 3 ) , making twelve counts of explanation and exposition in all .
This comprehensive account took some four hours and I shall not attempt to capture it here .
I will rather give highlights , but will relate occasionally to the alleged behaviour number and/or the alleged materials letter .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me some time to do so !
On 1 ) Summers at great length demonstrated conclusively that Manning had access to each material a ) b ) c ) d ) provided to Wikileaks without needing any code from Assange , and had that access before ever contacting Assange .
Nor had Manning needed a code to conceal her identity as the prosecution alleged – the database for intelligence analysts Manning could access – as could thousands of others – did not require a username or password to access it from a work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several officers from Manning ’ s court-martial to confirm this .
Nor would breaking the systems admin code on the system give Manning access to any additional classified databases .
Summers quoted evidence from the Manning court-martial , where this had been accepted , that the reason Manning wanted to get in to systems admin was to allow soldiers to put their video-games and movies on their government laptops , which in fact happened frequently .
Magistrate Baraitser twice made major interruptions .
She observed that if Chelsea Manning did not know she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who downloaded the databases , she might have sought Assange ’ s assistance to crack a code to conceal her identity from ignorance she did not need to do that , and to assist would still be an offence by Assange .
Summers pointed out that Manning knew that she did not need a username and password , because she actually accessed all the materials without one .
Baraitser replied that this did not constitute proof she knew she could not be traced .
Summers said in logic it made no sense to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to conceal her user ID and password , where there was no user ID and password .
Baraitser replied again he could not prove that .
At this point Summers became somewhat testy and short with Baraitser , and took her through the court martial evidence again .
Of which more… Baraitser also made the point that even if Assange were helping Manning to crack an admin code , even if it did not enable Manning to access any more databases , that still was unauthorised use and would constitute the crime of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if for an innocent purpose .
After a brief break , Baraitser came back with a real zinger .
She told Summers that he had presented the findings of the US court martial of Chelsea Manning as fact .
But she did not agree that her court had to treat evidence at a US court martial , even agreed or uncontested evidence or prosecution evidence , as fact .
Summers replied that agreed evidence or prosecution evidence at the US court martial clearly was agreed by the US government as fact , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was whether the US government was charging contrary to the facts it knew .
Baraitser said she would return to her point once witnesses were heard .
Baraitser was no making no attempt to conceal a hostility to the defence argument , and seemed irritated they had the temerity to make it .
This burst out when discussing c ) , the Iraq war rules of engagement .
Summers argued that these had not been solicited from Manning , but had rather been provided by Manning in an accompanying file along with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Reuters journalists and children .
Manning ’ s purpose , as she stated at her court martial , was to show that the Collateral Murder actions breached the rules of engagement , even though the Department of Defense claimed otherwise .
Summers stated that by not including this context , the US extradition request was deliberately misleading as it did not even mention the Collateral Murder video at all .
At this point Baraitser could not conceal her contempt .
Try to imagine Lady Bracknell saying “ A Handbag ” or “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your education didn ’ t run that way try to imagine Pritti Patel spotting a disabled immigrant .
This is a literal quote : An unfazed Summers replied in the affirmative and then went on to show where the Supreme Court had said so in other extradition cases .
Baraitser was showing utter confusion that anybody could claim a significant distinction between the Government and God .
The bulk of Summers ’ argument went to refuting behaviour 3 ) , putting lives at risk .
This was only claimed in relation to materials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ described at great length the efforts of Wikileaks with media partners over more than a year to set up a massive redaction campaign on the cables .
He explained that the unredacted cables only became available after Luke Harding and David Leigh of the Guardian published the password to the cache as the heading to Chapter XI of their book Wikileaks , published in February 2011 .
Nobody had put 2 and 2 together on this password until the German publication Die Freitag had done so and announced it had the unredacted cables @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most powerful arguments of the day .
The US government had been actively participating in the redaction exercise on the cables .
They therefore knew the allegations of reckless publication to be untrue .
Once Die Freitag announced they had the unredacted materials , Julian Assange and Sara Harrison instantly telephoned the White House , State Department and US Embassy to warn them named sources may be put at risk .
Summers read from the transcripts of telephone conversations as Assange and Harrison attempted to convince US officials of the urgency of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their bafflement as officials stonewalled them .
This evidence utterly undermined the US government ’ s case and proved bad faith in omitting extremely relevant fact .
It was a very striking moment .
With relation to the same behaviour 3 ) on materials d ) , Summers showed that the Manning court martial had accepted these materials contained no endangered source names , but showed that Wikileaks had activated a redaction exercise anyway as a “ belt and braces ” approach .
There was much more from the defence .
For the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reply in depth later in proceedings , but wished to state that the prosecution does not accept the court martial evidence as fact , and particularly does not accept any of the “ self-serving ” testimony of Chelsea Manning , whom he portrayed as a convicted criminal falsely claiming noble motives .
The prosecution generally rejected any notion that this court should consider the truth or otherwise of any of the facts ; those could only be decided at trial in the USA .
Then , to wrap up proceedings , Baraitser dropped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although Article 4.1 of the US/UK Extradition Treaty forbade political extraditions , this was only in the Treaty .
That exemption does not appear in the UK Extradition Act .
On the face of it therefore political extradition is not illegal in the UK , as the Treaty has no legal force on the Court .
She invited the defence to address this argument in the morning .
It is now 06.35am and I am late to start queuing… With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reproduce and publish , including in translation , and I very much hope people will do so actively .
Truth shall set us free .

This afternoon Julian’s Spanish lawyer, Baltasar Garzon, left court to return to Madrid. On the way out he naturally stopped to shake hands with his client, proffering his fingers through the narrow slit in the bulletproof glass cage. Assange half stood to take his lawyer’s hand. The two security guards in the cage with Assange immediately sprang up, putting hands on Julian and forcing him to sit down, preventing the handshake.That was not by any means the worst thing today, but it is a striking image of the senseless brute force continually used against a man accused of publishing documents. That a man cannot even shake his lawyer’s hand goodbye is against the entire spirit in which the members of the legal system like to pretend the law is practised. I offer that startling moment as encapsulating yesterday’s events in court.Day 2 proceedings had started with a statement from Edward Fitzgerald, Assange’s QC, that shook us rudely into life. He stated that yesterday, on the first day of trial, Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top of this, all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today’s proceedings.
Magistrate Baraitser looked at Fitzgerald and stated, in a voice laced with disdain, that he had raised such matters before and she had always replied that she had no jurisdiction over the prison estate. He should take it up with the prison authorities. Fitzgerald remained on his feet, which drew a very definite scowl from Baraitser, and replied that of course they would do that again, but this repeated behaviour by the prison authorities threatened the ability of the defence to prepare. He added that regardless of jurisdiction, in his experience it was common practice for magistrates and judges to pass on comments and requests to the prison service where the conduct of the trial was affected, and that jails normally listened to magistrates sympathetically.
Baraitser flat-out denied any knowledge of such a practice, and stated that Fitzgerald should present her with written arguments setting out the case law on jurisdiction over prison conditions. This was too much even for prosecution counsel James Lewis, who stood up to say the prosecution would also want Assange to have a fair hearing, and that he could confirm that what the defence were suggesting was normal practice. Even then, Baraitser still refused to intervene with the prison. She stated that if the prison conditions were so bad as to reach the very high bar of making a fair hearing impossible, the defence should bring a motion to dismiss the charges on those grounds. Otherwise they should drop it.
Both prosecution and defence seemed surprised by Baraitser’s claim that she had not heard of what they both referred to as common practice. Lewis may have been genuinely concerned at the shocking description of Assange’s prison treatment yesterday; or he may have just had warning klaxons going off in his head screaming “mistrial”. But the net result is Baraitser will attempt to do nothing to prevent Julian’s physical and mental abuse in jail nor to try to give him the ability to participate in his defence. The only realistic explanation that occurs to me is that Baraitser has been warned off, because this continual mistreatment and confiscation of documents is on senior government authority.
A last small incident for me to recount: having queued again from the early hours, I was at the final queue before the entrance to the public gallery, when the name was called out of Kristin Hrnafsson, editor of Wikileaks, with whom I was talking at the time. Kristin identified himself, and was told by the court official he was barred from the public gallery.
Now I was with Kristin throughout the entire proceedings the previous day, and he had done absolutely nothing amiss – he is rather a quiet gentleman. When he was called for, it was by name and by job description – they were specifically banning the editor of Wikileaks from the trial. Kristin asked why and was told it was a decision of the Court.
At this stage John Shipton, Julian’s father, announced that in this case the family members would all leave too, and they did so, walking out of the building. They and others then started tweeting the news of the family walkout. This appeared to cause some consternation among court officials, and fifteen minutes later Kristin was re-admitted. We still have no idea what lay behind this. Later in the day journalists were being briefed by officials it was simply over queue-jumping, but that seems improbable as he was removed by staff who called him by name and title, rather than had spotted him as a queue-jumper.
None of the above goes to the official matter of the case. All of the above tells you more about the draconian nature of the political show-trial which is taking place than does the charade being enacted in the body of the court. There were moments today when I got drawn in to the court process and achieved the suspension of disbelief you might do in theatre, and began thinking “Wow, this case is going well for Assange”. Then an event such as those recounted above kicks in, a coldness grips your heart, and you recall there is no jury here to be convinced. I simply do not believe that anything said or proved in the courtroom can have an impact on the final verdict of this court.
So to the actual proceedings in the case.
For the defence, Mark Summers QC stated that the USA charges were entirely dependent on three factual accusations of Assange behviour:
1) Assange helped Manning to decode a hash key to access classified material.
Summers stated this was a provably false allegation from the evidence of the Manning court-martial.
2) Assange solicited the material from Manning
Summers stated this was provably wrong from information available to the public
3) Assange knowingly put lives at risk
Summers stated this was provably wrong both from publicly available information and from specific involvement of the US government.
In summary, Summers stated the US government knew that the allegations being made were false as to fact, and they were demonstrably made in bad faith. This was therefore an abuse of process which should lead to dismissal of the extradition request. He described the above three counts as “rubbish, rubbish and rubbish”.
Summers then walked through the facts of the case. He said the charges from the USA divide the materials leaked by Manning to Wikileaks into three categories:
a) Diplomatic Cables
b) Guantanamo detainee assessment briefs
c) Iraq War rules of engagement
d) Afghan and Iraqi war logs
Summers then methodically went through a), b), c) and d) relating each in turn to alleged behaviours 1), 2) and 3), making twelve counts of explanation and exposition in all. This comprehensive account took some four hours and I shall not attempt to capture it here. I will rather give highlights, but will relate occasionally to the alleged behaviour number and/or the alleged materials letter. I hope you follow that – it took me some time to do so!
On 1) Summers at great length demonstrated conclusively that Manning had access to each material a) b) c) d) provided to Wikileaks without needing any code from Assange, and had that access before ever contacting Assange. Nor had Manning needed a code to conceal her identity as the prosecution alleged – the database for intelligence analysts Manning could access – as could thousands of others – did not require a username or password to access it from a work military computer. Summers quoted testimony of several officers from Manning’s court-martial to confirm this. Nor would breaking the systems admin code on the system give Manning access to any additional classified databases. Summers quoted evidence from the Manning court-martial, where this had been accepted, that the reason Manning wanted to get in to systems admin was to allow soldiers to put their video-games and movies on their government laptops, which in fact happened frequently.
Magistrate Baraitser twice made major interruptions. She observed that if Chelsea Manning did not know she could not be traced as the user who downloaded the databases, she might have sought Assange’s assistance to crack a code to conceal her identity from ignorance she did not need to do that, and to assist would still be an offence by Assange.
Summers pointed out that Manning knew that she did not need a username and password, because she actually accessed all the materials without one. Baraitser replied that this did not constitute proof she knew she could not be traced. Summers said in logic it made no sense to argue that she was seeking a code to conceal her user ID and password, where there was no user ID and password. Baraitser replied again he could not prove that. At this point Summers became somewhat testy and short with Baraitser, and took her through the court martial evidence again. Of which more…
Baraitser also made the point that even if Assange were helping Manning to crack an admin code, even if it did not enable Manning to access any more databases, that still was unauthorised use and would constitute the crime of aiding and abetting computer misuse, even if for an innocent purpose.
After a brief break, Baraitser came back with a real zinger. She told Summers that he had presented the findings of the US court martial of Chelsea Manning as fact. But she did not agree that her court had to treat evidence at a US court martial, even agreed or uncontested evidence or prosecution evidence, as fact. Summers replied that agreed evidence or prosecution evidence at the US court martial clearly was agreed by the US government as fact, and what was at issue at the moment was whether the US government was charging contrary to the facts it knew. Baraitser said she would return to her point once witnesses were heard.
Baraitser was no making no attempt to conceal a hostility to the defence argument, and seemed irritated they had the temerity to make it. This burst out when discussing c), the Iraq war rules of engagement. Summers argued that these had not been solicited from Manning, but had rather been provided by Manning in an accompanying file along with the Collateral Murder video that showed the murder of Reuters journalists and children. Manning’s purpose, as she stated at her court martial, was to show that the Collateral Murder actions breached the rules of engagement, even though the Department of Defense claimed otherwise. Summers stated that by not including this context, the US extradition request was deliberately misleading as it did not even mention the Collateral Murder video at all.
At this point Baraitser could not conceal her contempt. Try to imagine Lady Bracknell saying “A Handbag” or “the Brighton line”, or if your education didn’t run that way try to imagine Pritti Patel spotting a disabled immigrant. This is a literal quote:
“Are you suggesting, Mr Summers, that the authorities, the Government, should have to provide context for its charges?”
An unfazed Summers replied in the affirmative and then went on to show where the Supreme Court had said so in other extradition cases. Baraitser was showing utter confusion that anybody could claim a significant distinction between the Government and God.
The bulk of Summers’ argument went to refuting behaviour 3), putting lives at risk. This was only claimed in relation to materials a) and d). Summers described at great length the efforts of Wikileaks with media partners over more than a year to set up a massive redaction campaign on the cables. He explained that the unredacted cables only became available after Luke Harding and David Leigh of the Guardian published the password to the cache as the heading to Chapter XI of their book Wikileaks, published in February 2011.
Nobody had put 2 and 2 together on this password until the German publication Die Freitag had done so and announced it had the unredacted cables in August 2011. Summers then gave the most powerful arguments of the day.
The US government had been actively participating in the redaction exercise on the cables. They therefore knew the allegations of reckless publication to be untrue.
Once Die Freitag announced they had the unredacted materials, Julian Assange and Sara Harrison instantly telephoned the White House, State Department and US Embassy to warn them named sources may be put at risk. Summers read from the transcripts of telephone conversations as Assange and Harrison attempted to convince US officials of the urgency of enabling source protection procedures – and expressed their bafflement as officials stonewalled them. This evidence utterly undermined the US government’s case and proved bad faith in omitting extremely relevant fact. It was a very striking moment.
With relation to the same behaviour 3) on materials d), Summers showed that the Manning court martial had accepted these materials contained no endangered source names, but showed that Wikileaks had activated a redaction exercise anyway as a “belt and braces” approach.
There was much more from the defence. For the prosecution, James Lewis indicated he would reply in depth later in proceedings, but wished to state that the prosecution does not accept the court martial evidence as fact, and particularly does not accept any of the “self-serving” testimony of Chelsea Manning, whom he portrayed as a convicted criminal falsely claiming noble motives. The prosecution generally rejected any notion that this court should consider the truth or otherwise of any of the facts; those could only be decided at trial in the USA.
Then, to wrap up proceedings, Baraitser dropped a massive bombshell. She stated that although Article 4.1 of the US/UK Extradition Treaty forbade political extraditions, this was only in the Treaty. That exemption does not appear in the UK Extradition Act. On the face of it therefore political extradition is not illegal in the UK, as the Treaty has no legal force on the Court. She invited the defence to address this argument in the morning.
It is now 06.35am and I am late to start queuing…
With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible.
This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so actively. Truth shall set us free.


theduran--2020-02-26--Trump’s India Visit Was Aimed Against China but Produced No Results

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Paul Antonopoulos , Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies… During U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s visit to India on Monday and Tuesday , he was led to a packed cricket stadium with about 100,000 people in Ahmedabad , the capital of Gujarat , the home of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi .
Although many viewed this visit from the trade perspective , we can not overlook that this visit is also part of Trump ’ s hostilities with China .
Due to the complex situation in Sino-U.S. relations , Trump went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ’ s leadership to participate in certain projects to undermine China .
Although India is a potential competitor of China , India says it is adhering to a balanced policy despite its friction with China .
With these frictions existing , it is still not enough to consider India an opponent of China .
Trump has not swayed India to be openly adversarial to China , however his intentions would have been to at least demonstrate that he has identified India into his umbrella of states to oppose China .
The president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope of signing a trade agreement with India .
In the end , both leaders did not agree on a much talked-about trade agreement where Trump was hoping to sign a deal that would help bridge the $ 25.2 billion trade deficit with India .
Therefore , the U.S. still has aspirations and needs in this regard , but Washington is clearly unable to meet its needs .
This comes as the U.S. is currently facing the problem of a large number of job backflows and too many imports of Indian products will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S .
Although its domestic economy is facing difficulties , it is unlikely that India would want to become adversarial with China as the East Asian country is its second largest trading partner .
India has to maintain its balanced policy with Beijing and Washington as it announced only days ago that the U.S. was once against India ’ s largest trading partner .
China ’ s growing influence is prompting the U.S. to more actively build its own Indo-Pacific strategy .
Essentially , Washington is seeking partners to more actively restrict China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stature .
But in the eyes of Trump , India is just a useful tool to implement this strategy and pressure China and its Belt and Road Initiative .
India ’ s participation in the Indo-Pacific strategy was initially essential to oppose the Belt and Road Initiative .
However , New Delhi hopes the Indo-Pacific strategy is an alternative to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and an opportunity for its own economic development independent of China in the hope of fulfilling its potential of becoming a Great Power on its own terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. strategy , this enthusiasm has now waned .
India found that although it has common interests with the U.S. in balancing China , there were too many differences , especially revolving around trade .
India ’ s current concern is not to curb China and other issues , but how to improve its domestic economy .
Washington wants India to be a bridgehead in the region , however , India is currently governed by Hindutva nationalists , and they are very cautious with foreign ideologies , particularly those with an Anglo basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not have a known economic policy and structure as rather it is aimed at pressurizing China – a stark difference with the Belt and Road Initiative .
The constant threat of closing their markets and forcing India to buy something is not the best strategy to achieve results .
In the political field , this is not the basis for long-term cooperation , especially if Trump wants India to be a bulwark against China .
Trump did not sign any large-scale trade agreements during his visit while India needs a mutually beneficial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains unresolved , and there are too many trade gaps , making it difficult to make up for even with the expected use of military transactions .
Although Trump did not explicitly mention China during his trip to India , he did indirectly mention China .
“ During our visit we discussed the importance of a secure 5G wireless network and the need for this emerging technology to be a tool for freedom , progress , prosperity , not to do anything with where it could be even conceived as a conduit for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a press briefing after his meeting with Modi .
Trump has been urging countries not to use 5G equipment from China ’ s Huawei telecommunications company on the unfounded allegations that it could be used to spy on other countries , something that Huawei has repeatedly denied .
So , there is little doubt that Trump visited India hoping to consolidate and strengthen the country as part of his anti-China bloc , something that never eventuated in India ’ s approaching significantly closer to the U.S .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Paul Antonopoulos, Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies…
During U.S. President Donald Trump’s visit to India on Monday and Tuesday, he was led to a packed cricket stadium with about 100,000 people in Ahmedabad, the capital of Gujarat, the home of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Although many viewed this visit from the trade perspective, we cannot overlook that this visit is also part of Trump’s hostilities with China. Due to the complex situation in Sino-U.S. relations, Trump went to India with intentions of encouraging the country’s leadership to participate in certain projects to undermine China. Although India is a potential competitor of China, India says it is adhering to a balanced policy despite its friction with China. With these frictions existing, it is still not enough to consider India an opponent of China.
Trump has not swayed India to be openly adversarial to China, however his intentions would have been to at least demonstrate that he has identified India into his umbrella of states to oppose China. The president’s visit took place in the hope of signing a trade agreement with India. In the end, both leaders did not agree on a much talked-about trade agreement where Trump was hoping to sign a deal that would help bridge the $25.2 billion trade deficit with India. Therefore, the U.S. still has aspirations and needs in this regard, but Washington is clearly unable to meet its needs.
This comes as the U.S. is currently facing the problem of a large number of job backflows and too many imports of Indian products will conflict with the domestic problems of the U.S. Although its domestic economy is facing difficulties, it is unlikely that India would want to become adversarial with China as the East Asian country is its second largest trading partner. India has to maintain its balanced policy with Beijing and Washington as it announced only days ago that the U.S. was once against India’s largest trading partner.
China’s growing influence is prompting the U.S. to more actively build its own Indo-Pacific strategy. Essentially, Washington is seeking partners to more actively restrict China as it rises in economic and military stature. But in the eyes of Trump, India is just a useful tool to implement this strategy and pressure China and its Belt and Road Initiative. India’s participation in the Indo-Pacific strategy was initially essential to oppose the Belt and Road Initiative. However, New Delhi hopes the Indo-Pacific strategy is an alternative to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and an opportunity for its own economic development independent of China in the hope of fulfilling its potential of becoming a Great Power on its own terms.
Initially India was enthusiastic for the U.S. strategy, this enthusiasm has now waned. India found that although it has common interests with the U.S. in balancing China, there were too many differences, especially revolving around trade. India’s current concern is not to curb China and other issues, but how to improve its domestic economy. Washington wants India to be a bridgehead in the region, however, India is currently governed by Hindutva nationalists, and they are very cautious with foreign ideologies, particularly those with an Anglo basis. In addition, the Indo-Pacific strategy does not have a known economic policy and structure as rather it is aimed at pressurizing China – a stark difference with the Belt and Road Initiative.
The constant threat of closing their markets and forcing India to buy something is not the best strategy to achieve results. In the political field, this is not the basis for long-term cooperation, especially if Trump wants India to be a bulwark against China. Trump did not sign any large-scale trade agreements during his visit while India needs a mutually beneficial trading partner like China. The problem remains unresolved, and there are too many trade gaps, making it difficult to make up for even with the expected use of military transactions. Although Trump did not explicitly mention China during his trip to India, he did indirectly mention China.
“During our visit we discussed the importance of a secure 5G wireless network and the need for this emerging technology to be a tool for freedom, progress, prosperity, not to do anything with where it could be even conceived as a conduit for suppression and censorship,” Trump said in a press briefing after his meeting with Modi. Trump has been urging countries not to use 5G equipment from China’s Huawei telecommunications company on the unfounded allegations that it could be used to spy on other countries, something that Huawei has repeatedly denied.
So, there is little doubt that Trump visited India hoping to consolidate and strengthen the country as part of his anti-China bloc, something that never eventuated in India’s approaching significantly closer to the U.S.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-26--Turkey’s Request for U.S. Patriot Missiles to Pressure Russia In Syria Will Not Work

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Paul Antonopoulos , Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies… Ankara ’ s statements about an imminent military operation in Syria and the Turkish authorities ’ request for Washington to supply them with U.S.-made Patriot anti-aircraft missile systems are just Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ’ s manoeuvres to leverage against Russia that his country may be returning to the NATO camp .
With Turkey supporting and backing jihadists against the Syrian Army in Idlib , the situation in Syria is becoming increasingly hostile as Erdoğan has threatened to directly go to war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Syria does not reverse the gains it made in previous weeks .
There is a certain danger for war that could drag Russia as it is the main backer of the Syrian Army .
Turkey has not shied away that it is increasingly getting frustrated with Moscow as it has unrelentingly backed its Syrian allies against Turkish-backed forces .
This becomes complicated as not only Turkey and Russia have interests in Idlib , but so do the U.S. and Iran , however , Russia and Turkey are not going to war as many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed by Turkey to launch a major military operation in Idlib , a province that Ankara considers to be its area of influence .
Last Friday , Turkey with its jihadists allies last week attempted to invade the town of Nayrab , resulting in a complete failure that saw the death of tens of jihadists and two Turkish soldiers .
This failure created a sudden realization for Turkey that its ground troops will need aviation and air defense support .
Although Turkey acquired the Russian S-400 missile defense system , they will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning that Turkey will find it difficult to contend with Syrian jets if they choose to directly go to war with the Syrian military .
It is likely that Turkey is requesting Patriots for political purposes and not to use against Russia in any potential conflict .
Turkey significantly damaged their relationship with the U.S. to acquire the S-400 from Russia as Washington claimed they were not compatible with NATO military doctrine .
Washington was so outraged by this purchase that it even placed sanctions against Turkey .
But now Turkey ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purpose in order to get closer to Washington and begin mending relations .
As Erdoğan pursues foreign policy equally distant from Moscow , Washington and the EU , it is now manoeuvring and taking opportunity to apply pressure on Moscow by using a potential rapprochement with the U.S .
Although Moscow and Ankara find differences over Idlib , a complete break in Russo-Turkish relations is actually not beneficial to either state .
Both countries now have vested economic interests ranging from the Turkish Stream pipeline to the construction of the Akkuyu nuclear power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , despite these joint projects , Moscow is also becoming increasingly frustrated with Turkey as it refused to fulfill a number of key commitments to resolve the Idlib crisis .
As part of the Sochi agreement , Ankara was to separate jihadists operating in Idlib from so-called moderate forces who were willing to engage in dialogue with Damascus in the political process .
Rather , this failure to do so demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of militants in Idlib belong to radical factions , particularly the Al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra Front .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to all expenses to defend his country ’ s interests in Idlib , so much so that he is willing to purchase Patriots and continue to fund terrorist organizations , all while Turkey spirals into a deeper economic crisis as the Turkish lira continues to lose value .
Encouraged by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg endorsement of Turkey ’ s position on Idlib , Erdoğan will likely be unrelenting to achieve his goals of a neo-Ottoman Empire .
However , Erdoğan knew the U.S. would not sell Patriots to Turkey .
Rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purposes – signal to Russia that Turkey might be moving away from it , and open dialogue with Washington to normalize relations .
However , both the U.S. and Russia know this is a bluff .
Washington has not responded to the Patriot sale offer the way that Ankara would have hoped and Russia has relentlessly continued its bombing campaign against Turkish-backed jihadists in Idlib .
It is likely that the U.S. will only offer to sell the Patriots on a set of conditions such as ending purchases of Russian military equipment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would demonstrate that Ankara is firmly back in NATO ’ s fold – and if it does not do this , it would show that Erdoğan was making a bluff and is all alone in the Idlib mishap .
Either way , Turkey is not going to war with Russia as it has to many vested and cooperated economic interests , and by the same token will not be able to pressure Russia out of Idlib or stop its backing of the Syrian military .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Paul Antonopoulos, Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies…
Ankara’s statements about an imminent military operation in Syria and the Turkish authorities’ request for Washington to supply them with U.S.-made Patriot anti-aircraft missile systems are just Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s manoeuvres to leverage against Russia that his country may be returning to the NATO camp. With Turkey supporting and backing jihadists against the Syrian Army in Idlib, the situation in Syria is becoming increasingly hostile as Erdoğan has threatened to directly go to war at the end of the month if Syria does not reverse the gains it made in previous weeks. There is a certain danger for war that could drag Russia as it is the main backer of the Syrian Army. Turkey has not shied away that it is increasingly getting frustrated with Moscow as it has unrelentingly backed its Syrian allies against Turkish-backed forces. This becomes complicated as not only Turkey and Russia have interests in Idlib, but so do the U.S. and Iran, however, Russia and Turkey are not going to war as many have speculated.
Patriot systems will be needed by Turkey to launch a major military operation in Idlib, a province that Ankara considers to be its area of influence. Last Friday, Turkey with its jihadists allies last week attempted to invade the town of Nayrab, resulting in a complete failure that saw the death of tens of jihadists and two Turkish soldiers. This failure created a sudden realization for Turkey that its ground troops will need aviation and air defense support. Although Turkey acquired the Russian S-400 missile defense system, they will not be ready until sometime this spring, meaning that Turkey will find it difficult to contend with Syrian jets if they choose to directly go to war with the Syrian military.
It is likely that Turkey is requesting Patriots for political purposes and not to use against Russia in any potential conflict. Turkey significantly damaged their relationship with the U.S. to acquire the S-400 from Russia as Washington claimed they were not compatible with NATO military doctrine. Washington was so outraged by this purchase that it even placed sanctions against Turkey. But now Turkey’s request for the Patriots serves a political purpose in order to get closer to Washington and begin mending relations. As Erdoğan pursues foreign policy equally distant from Moscow, Washington and the EU, it is now manoeuvring and taking opportunity to apply pressure on Moscow by using a potential rapprochement with the U.S.
Although Moscow and Ankara find differences over Idlib, a complete break in Russo-Turkish relations is actually not beneficial to either state. Both countries now have vested economic interests ranging from the Turkish Stream pipeline to the construction of the Akkuyu nuclear power plant that Russia has invested heavily in. However, despite these joint projects, Moscow is also becoming increasingly frustrated with Turkey as it refused to fulfill a number of key commitments to resolve the Idlib crisis. As part of the Sochi agreement, Ankara was to separate jihadists operating in Idlib from so-called moderate forces who were willing to engage in dialogue with Damascus in the political process. Rather, this failure to do so demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of militants in Idlib belong to radical factions, particularly the Al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra Front.
Erdoğan has shown he is willing to go to all expenses to defend his country’s interests in Idlib, so much so that he is willing to purchase Patriots and continue to fund terrorist organizations, all while Turkey spirals into a deeper economic crisis as the Turkish lira continues to lose value. Encouraged by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg endorsement of Turkey’s position on Idlib, Erdoğan will likely be unrelenting to achieve his goals of a neo-Ottoman Empire.
However, Erdoğan knew the U.S. would not sell Patriots to Turkey. Rather, this movie is to serve two purposes – signal to Russia that Turkey might be moving away from it, and open dialogue with Washington to normalize relations. However, both the U.S. and Russia know this is a bluff. Washington has not responded to the Patriot sale offer the way that Ankara would have hoped and Russia has relentlessly continued its bombing campaign against Turkish-backed jihadists in Idlib.
It is likely that the U.S. will only offer to sell the Patriots on a set of conditions such as ending purchases of Russian military equipment. If Turkey is to do this, it would demonstrate that Ankara is firmly back in NATO’s fold – and if it does not do this, it would show that Erdoğan was making a bluff and is all alone in the Idlib mishap. Either way, Turkey is not going to war with Russia as it has to many vested and cooperated economic interests, and by the same token will not be able to pressure Russia out of Idlib or stop its backing of the Syrian military.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-26--Are Bernie and the Democrat Party just entertainment? [Video]

The 2020 campaign for Presidential nominee in the Democrat Party is very strange .
The characteristics are warped , thrown into a quasi-hypnotic level of distortion .
At least , that is how it looks from a conservative viewpoint .
The campaign does do one thing very well .
It highlights the extremely vivid ideological divide between a culture of common sense and pragmatic conservatism such as it exists with President Trump , and the schizophrenic range of ideologies that all together make up an extremely liberal offering of candidates .
Along with the Democrat Party offerings come some really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Bernie Sanders , the present , and possibly future leader in the primaries .
One commenter on a Fox piece said it very well , and hopefully he or she sees this piece so we can put a real name on their brilliant thought : • Medicare for all — “ We ’ ll just tax the rich ” .
• Free Medicare for illegals— “ We ’ ll just tax the rich ” • Pay off all medical debt – “ We ’ ll just tax the rich ” • Erase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll just tax the rich ” • Erase all credit card debts — “ We ’ ll just tax the rich ” .
• A free house for everyone — “ We ’ ll just tax the rich ” .
• Cure for cancer – We ’ ll just tax the rich ” • Free cell phones for everyone – “ We ’ ll just tax the rich ” .
• Free cars that will all be electric – “ We ’ ll just tax the rich ” • Free Sex Changes – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rich ” • Social Security for illegals- “ We ’ ll just tax the rich ” • Oh yeah , free money to the UN for “ climate change ” — “ We ’ ll just tax the rich ” .
• And now we can add Free child care – “ We ’ ll just tax the rich ” The basic idea is pretty consistent .
Bernie delivered a rather surprising set of plans , available for viewing on his own campaign website – definitely worth studying .
Here , he details @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how they would be paid for .
He gives many numbers .
To distill this , we refer to a piece run on 25 February from Fox News .
We offer a redacted excerpt that should not diminish from the full piece ; nevertheless , we advise our readers to read that full piece for the most accurate effort at analysis : … [ T ] he fact-sheet highlighted for the first time that many of Sanders ’ expected cost-saving measures relied heavily on conjecture .
For example , Sanders ’ document asserts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wall Street speculation … will raise an estimated $ 2.4 trillion over ten years ” and , in one fell swoop , make all “ public colleges , universities and trade schools tuition-free … and cancel all student debt over the next decade.
” The proposal specifically would place a “ 0.5 percent tax on stock trades – 50 cents on every $ 100 of stock – a 0.1 percent fee on bond trades , and a 0.005 percent fee on derivative trades.
” The National Review has likened a tax on so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ de facto tax on savings , saying the Sanders plan “ would mean paying $ 25 to the federal government every time you traded $ 5,000 worth of stock — or five times what you ’ d pay the typical online brokerage in fees .
… Over the long term , that imposes serious costs on actively traded funds such as the ones containing many Americans ’ retirement funds.
” Meanwhile , housing for everyone would cost $ 2.5 trillion over ten years , and would be paid entirely by a “ wealth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent , ” raising a total of $ 4.35 trillion , according to Sanders ’ fact-sheet .
Similarly , “ universal childcare and pre-school to every family in America ” would be provided with a wealth tax on the “ top 0.1 percent , ” again raising more than $ 4 trillion .
Sanders ’ plan did not discuss the possible stock market ramificiations of a major seizure of some of this wealth , much of which is held in markets and other investments .
The plan also did not discuss how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the money , given that many investments could simply be liquidated or transferred elsewhere before his administration took office .
Instead , Sanders ’ proposal said only that it would eventually establish a “ national wealth registry and significant additional third party reporting requirements , ” buff up IRS funding and , and “ include enhancements to the international tax enforcement.
” The plan would require the IRS “ to perform an audit of 30 percent of wealth tax returns for those in the 1 percent bracket and a 100 percent audit rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include a “ 40 percent exit tax on the net value of all assets under $ 1 billion and 60 percent over $ 1 billion for all wealthy individual seeking to expatriate to avoid the tax.
” His detailed plan describes paying for many of his plans with a “ small ” tax on the top one-tenth of one percent earners in the country .
One must question how this works : His plan discusses at total of $ 70 trillion to be raised from taxes , and that over ten years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ count of US billionaires reveals that there are 540 such people in the United States , with a combined worth of some $ 2.399 trillion .
While this group of people may be far fewer in number than the “ top tenth of the top one percent ” it is not likely that that tiny fraction of earners is going to be able to cough up $ 7 trillion per year .
Neither are the taxes on stock trades likely to help this .
In fact , the total US Gross Domestic Product @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To skim a third of this every year for ten years would be devastating to the US economy by any measure .
Because of this information , Bernie ’ s plan appears to be complete “ pie in the sky ” when run against a reality check , but Sen. Sanders did make a clever ploy by illustrating and releasing his plan .
No doubt his supporters will be thrilled at his move , calling him an anti-Trump or something more clever than that .
Yet , despite the political advantage gained in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support this set of idea .
Further , Sanders does not appear to recognize the mechanism of American politics – the only way to forcibly seize such funds is to get Congress to pass laws to tax in such ways , and that requires a majority in both houses that would actually support such moves .
Given the present state of the economy this appears unlikely .
Further , speculation that the COVID-19 “ coronavirus ” outbreak is going to spread is probably correct .
We see it doing so .
But unless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of thing that disaster movies are made of , there will eventually be vaccinations available against it , and it may just become another virus in the background of all of these things that can make people sick or even kill them .
The present death rate does not indicate the nightmare scenarios we dreamed about in books and films… at least not thus far .
With this in mind , the present economic hit will eventually stabilize and move forward again .
It is not likely to make American voters espouse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also not likely that an economic hit spurred by COVID-19 would hurt President Trump .
He will simply give his attention to this problem , and point at the outbreak as the cause for any economic problems , and this will be accepted as true .
With all this said , what about the rest of the Democrat Party field ?
This is where the “ entertainment ” aspect seems to shine .
The debates are anything but debates .
They are not policy discussions so much as they are something more akin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the level of Jerry Springer .
( Indeed , instead of a man dressed as a woman , we now feature a “ married ” gay man trying to become President of the US… and who talks the best game of any of the candidates… that is Pete Buttigieg , folks ! )
The rest of it is equally absurd .
The only policy wonk in the mix is Sanders .
All the others are much more vague on policy ideas ( though none are believable ) , and it is presently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that really , all the candidates have the same basic ideology , but only Sanders is gutsy enough to actually tell people .
The whole Democrat scene is really being run as a sideshow , and it is very sad .
Donald Trump knew how to play the sideshow when it was being done four years ago on the GOP side , and he played it to win based on a sharp combination of policy and truly enjoying the fight for the top spot , sans pandering .
The Sanders campaign can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but less than the other candidates do .
The real tragedy of these “ debates ” is the actual absence of debate , itself .
This is a loss for the American voter , who really does need to be informed if he or she is to use their vote wisely .
However , it must also be said that the classless Springer-esque Democrat debates exist the way they do because the populace in many ways prefers such a show rather than to think .
It is not that Americans are stupid – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so ) – it is that they are driven to process political and policy matters purely emotionally , passionately , and therefore WHO presents a given policy is far more important in terms of “ political sex appeal ” than WHAT the policy itself is .
That is why we see over and over , Campus Reform videos where university students say they support President Trump ’ s enacted policies as long as the questioner says that some Democrat put them into place .
This is a sad place to be for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for in fact the Russian 2018 Presidential debates ( which President Putin never participated in ) featured very similar sort of behavior , only magnified one hundred times , since Russians are not politically correct , and have no qualms getting really nasty on television .
We all know who won that contest .
It is enough to make one wonder : Who is interfering with whom ’ s elections ?

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The 2020 campaign for Presidential nominee in the Democrat Party is very strange. The characteristics are warped, thrown into a quasi-hypnotic level of distortion. At least, that is how it looks from a conservative viewpoint.
The campaign does do one thing very well. It highlights the extremely vivid ideological divide between a culture of common sense and pragmatic conservatism such as it exists with President Trump, and the schizophrenic range of ideologies that all together make up an extremely liberal offering of candidates.
Along with the Democrat Party offerings come some really absurd proposals. Most obvious are those of Bernie Sanders, the present, and possibly future leader in the primaries. One commenter on a Fox piece said it very well, and hopefully he or she sees this piece so we can put a real name on their brilliant thought:
Things Bernie has promised….so far:
Free college — “We’ll just tax the rich”.
Medicare for all — “We’ll just tax the rich”.
Free Medicare for illegals—“We’ll just tax the rich”
Pay off all medical debt – “We’ll just tax the rich”
Erase all college debt –“We’ll just tax the rich”
Erase all credit card debts — “We’ll just tax the rich”.
A free house for everyone — “We’ll just tax the rich”.
Guaranteed income — “We’ll just tax the rich”.
Reparations — “We’ll just tax the rich”.
Cure for cancer – We’ll just tax the rich”
Free cell phones for everyone – “We’ll just tax the rich”.
Free cars that will all be electric – “We’ll just tax the rich”
Free electricity – “We’ll just tax the rich”
Free Rent Controls – “We’ll just tax the rich”.
Free Sex Changes – “We’ll just tax the rich”
Social Security for illegals- “We’ll just tax the rich”
Oh yeah, free money to the UN for “climate change” — “We’ll just tax the rich”.
And now we can add Free child care – “We’ll just tax the rich”
The basic idea is pretty consistent. Bernie delivered a rather surprising set of plans, available for viewing on his own campaign website – definitely worth studying. Here, he details how his proposals would be enacted and how they would be paid for. He gives many numbers. To distill this, we refer to a piece run on 25 February from Fox News. We offer a redacted excerpt that should not diminish from the full piece; nevertheless, we advise our readers to read that full piece for the most accurate effort at analysis:
…[T]he fact-sheet highlighted for the first time that many of Sanders’ expected cost-saving measures relied heavily on conjecture. For example, Sanders’ document asserts matter-of-factly that a “modest tax on Wall Street speculation … will raise an estimated $2.4 trillion over ten years” and, in one fell swoop, make all “public colleges, universities and trade schools tuition-free … and cancel all student debt over the next decade.” The proposal specifically would place a “0.5 percent tax on stock trades – 50 cents on every $100 of stock – a 0.1 percent fee on bond trades, and a 0.005 percent fee on derivative trades.” The National Review has likened a tax on so-called “Wall Street speculation” to a de facto tax on savings, saying the Sanders plan “would mean paying $25 to the federal government every time you traded $5,000 worth of stock — or five times what you’d pay the typical online brokerage in fees. … Over the long term, that imposes serious costs on actively traded funds such as the ones containing many Americans’ retirement funds.” Meanwhile, housing for everyone would cost $2.5 trillion over ten years, and would be paid entirely by a “wealth tax on the top one-tenth of one percent,” raising a total of $4.35 trillion, according to Sanders’ fact-sheet. Similarly, “universal childcare and pre-school to every family in America” would be provided with a wealth tax on the “top 0.1 percent,” again raising more than $4 trillion. Sanders’ plan did not discuss the possible stock market ramificiations of a major seizure of some of this wealth, much of which is held in markets and other investments. The plan also did not discuss how the government would be able to reliably obtain the money, given that many investments could simply be liquidated or transferred elsewhere before his administration took office. Instead, Sanders’ proposal said only that it would eventually establish a “national wealth registry and significant additional third party reporting requirements,” buff up IRS funding and, and “include enhancements to the international tax enforcement.” The plan would require the IRS “to perform an audit of 30 percent of wealth tax returns for those in the 1 percent bracket and a 100 percent audit rate for all billionaires,” and would include a “40 percent exit tax on the net value of all assets under $1 billion and 60 percent over $1 billion for all wealthy individual seeking to expatriate to avoid the tax.”
His detailed plan describes paying for many of his plans with a “small” tax on the top one-tenth of one percent earners in the country.
One must question how this works: His plan discusses at total of $70 trillion to be raised from taxes, and that over ten years. But there is a problem.
A count of US billionaires reveals that there are 540 such people in the United States, with a combined worth of some $2.399 trillion. While this group of people may be far fewer in number than the “top tenth of the top one percent” it is not likely that that tiny fraction of earners is going to be able to cough up $7 trillion per year. Neither are the taxes on stock trades likely to help this. In fact, the total US Gross Domestic Product for 2019 was $21.43 trillion. To skim a third of this every year for ten years would be devastating to the US economy by any measure.
Because of this information, Bernie’s plan appears to be complete “pie in the sky” when run against a reality check, but Sen. Sanders did make a clever ploy by illustrating and releasing his plan. No doubt his supporters will be thrilled at his move, calling him an anti-Trump or something more clever than that.
Yet, despite the political advantage gained in the short term, reality does not support this set of idea. Further, Sanders does not appear to recognize the mechanism of American politics – the only way to forcibly seize such funds is to get Congress to pass laws to tax in such ways, and that requires a majority in both houses that would actually support such moves. Given the present state of the economy this appears unlikely.
Further, speculation that the COVID-19 “coronavirus” outbreak is going to spread is probably correct. We see it doing so. But unless the virus turns out to be the kind of thing that disaster movies are made of, there will eventually be vaccinations available against it, and it may just become another virus in the background of all of these things that can make people sick or even kill them. The present death rate does not indicate the nightmare scenarios we dreamed about in books and films… at least not thus far. With this in mind, the present economic hit will eventually stabilize and move forward again.
It is not likely to make American voters espouse widespread social programs, and it is also not likely that an economic hit spurred by COVID-19 would hurt President Trump. He will simply give his attention to this problem, and point at the outbreak as the cause for any economic problems, and this will be accepted as true.
With all this said, what about the rest of the Democrat Party field?
This is where the “entertainment” aspect seems to shine. The debates are anything but debates. They are not policy discussions so much as they are something more akin to low-grade reality TV, maybe something on the level of Jerry Springer. (Indeed, instead of a man dressed as a woman, we now feature a “married” gay man trying to become President of the US… and who talks the best game of any of the candidates… that is Pete Buttigieg, folks!)
The rest of it is equally absurd. The only policy wonk in the mix is Sanders. All the others are much more vague on policy ideas (though none are believable), and it is presently understood by pundits such as Rush Limbaugh that really, all the candidates have the same basic ideology, but only Sanders is gutsy enough to actually tell people.
The whole Democrat scene is really being run as a sideshow, and it is very sad. Donald Trump knew how to play the sideshow when it was being done four years ago on the GOP side, and he played it to win based on a sharp combination of policy and truly enjoying the fight for the top spot, sans pandering. The Sanders campaign cannot make this claim. He panders, but less than the other candidates do.
The real tragedy of these “debates” is the actual absence of debate, itself. This is a loss for the American voter, who really does need to be informed if he or she is to use their vote wisely. However, it must also be said that the classless Springer-esque Democrat debates exist the way they do because the populace in many ways prefers such a show rather than to think.
It is not that Americans are stupid – (even though I have often written so) – it is that they are driven to process political and policy matters purely emotionally, passionately, and therefore WHO presents a given policy is far more important in terms of “political sex appeal” than WHAT the policy itself is.
That is why we see over and over, Campus Reform videos where university students say they support President Trump’s enacted policies as long as the questioner says that some Democrat put them into place.
This is a sad place to be for the country. It is not without precedent, for in fact the Russian 2018 Presidential debates (which President Putin never participated in) featured very similar sort of behavior, only magnified one hundred times, since Russians are not politically correct, and have no qualms getting really nasty on television.
We all know who won that contest.
It is enough to make one wonder: Who is interfering with whom’s elections?
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-26--Brazil in Search for False Enemies

Brazil in Search for False Enemies

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Lucas Leiroz , research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro… Recently , the Brazilian Ministry of Defense published a dossier on possible threats to national security over the next two decades .
The document , however , is far from showing any sign of seriousness , being full of unfounded predictions , which call into question even the quality of the academic training of the military involved – or their commitment to the truth .
In the document , the Brazilian military set up a series of hypothetical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a real threat to Brazil in the coming years .
The reason is due to a brief tension and war of words between the Presidents Jair Bolsonaro and Emmanuel Macron over the past year , due to the environmental crisis and bushfires in the Amazon Rainforest .
For Brazilian generals , this is already a sufficient basis to see France as a real threat to national security , ignoring notable facts , such as that both countries are the biggest trading partners in military industry and that the tension between Bolsonaro and Macron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in addition to the fact that the French interest in starting a transcontinental war over the Amazon territory is absolutely minimal .
Continuing with forecasts , the document testifies to a future of great tensions in South America , with Venezuela and Guyana fighting conflicts in the north and Bolivia and Chile in the south , in addition to the installation of Chinese and American military bases across the continent .
Brazil , aligning itself with the USA , will act as a mediator of regional conflicts and will receive advanced armaments from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ installation of three American military bases in Colombia and a conflict between this country and Venezuela .
It is also speculated that Argentina will grow economically with oil exploration and that it will align with China , but that Brazil will veto the installation of Chinese bases in the neighboring country .
Brazil ’ s role in internal tensions and international geopolitics will depend exclusively on its good relations with the United States .
The dossier speculates that China will overtake the United States as an economic power , but that Washington will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alignment with American hegemonic power , then , will be a matter of survival and will allow Brazil to mediate regional conflicts , pacify neighboring countries and curb Chinese influence in South America .
The generals go even further with their unfounded speculations and claim that Brazil will arouse the fury of “ ultranationalist groups in Southeast Asia ” that , in retaliation , will launch biological weapons against the Brazilian population on the occasion of the musical festival “ Rock in Rio ” in its 2039 edition .
In brief summary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which Brazil ’ s alignment with the United States will no longer be a matter of political will , but of necessity and survival .
In practice , a group of more than 500 military researchers created a myth to justify alignment with Washington , using predictions that lack meaning and material bases .
The ultimate goal is simply to forcibly instill the belief that Brazil should become an American ally .
But the Brazilian military does not stop there .
Recently , the Russian ship Yantar approached the Brazilian coast , having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state of Rio de Janeiro .
When the ship was about 50 miles away from the beaches of Rio , the Brazilian Navy issued a communication signal that was not answered immediately .
It happens , however , that the vessel responded to the communication attempts issued later , which was not enough for the Brazilian Navy to retreat in its false alarm that the Russian ship would be performing espionage services on the Brazilian coast , spreading the lie through several media agencies and creating an unnecessary tension atmosphere .
The scandal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any specialist in military and intelligence operations laugh .
Do they really believe that such a vessel would be used for espionage purposes with such public exposure ?
Would the Brazilian State be irresponsible to the point of creating such an atmosphere of tension with Russia for absolutely nothing ?
The scenario leads to believe that it is not a collective idiocy of Brazilian generals , but rather a very well-designed project to create an environment of fear in relation to everything that is not of interest to the United States .
Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ espionage , French threat , regional wars , biological terrorism – these are all imaginary threats meticulously created by military who are no longer interested in national defense , but in the country ’ s subordination to the hegemonic global power .
Brazil seems to be experiencing one of the worst moments in its history .
Again , the higher generals are more committed to external interests than to the defense of their own country and seem to be willing to do anything to see Brazil becoming an American dependency .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Lucas Leiroz, research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro…
Recently, the Brazilian Ministry of Defense published a dossier on possible threats to national security over the next two decades. The document, however, is far from showing any sign of seriousness, being full of unfounded predictions, which call into question even the quality of the academic training of the military involved – or their commitment to the truth.
In the document, the Brazilian military set up a series of hypothetical scenarios and warn that France could become a real threat to Brazil in the coming years. The reason is due to a brief tension and war of words between the Presidents Jair Bolsonaro and Emmanuel Macron over the past year, due to the environmental crisis and bushfires in the Amazon Rainforest. For Brazilian generals, this is already a sufficient basis to see France as a real threat to national security, ignoring notable facts, such as that both countries are the biggest trading partners in military industry and that the tension between Bolsonaro and Macron has already calmed down months ago, in addition to the fact that the French interest in starting a transcontinental war over the Amazon territory is absolutely minimal.
Continuing with forecasts, the document testifies to a future of great tensions in South America, with Venezuela and Guyana fighting conflicts in the north and Bolivia and Chile in the south, in addition to the installation of Chinese and American military bases across the continent. Brazil, aligning itself with the USA, will act as a mediator of regional conflicts and will receive advanced armaments from Washington. The document also foresees the installation of three American military bases in Colombia and a conflict between this country and Venezuela. It is also speculated that Argentina will grow economically with oil exploration and that it will align with China, but that Brazil will veto the installation of Chinese bases in the neighboring country.
Brazil’s role in internal tensions and international geopolitics will depend exclusively on its good relations with the United States. The dossier speculates that China will overtake the United States as an economic power, but that Washington will remain the global military leader. Brazilian alignment with American hegemonic power, then, will be a matter of survival and will allow Brazil to mediate regional conflicts, pacify neighboring countries and curb Chinese influence in South America. The generals go even further with their unfounded speculations and claim that Brazil will arouse the fury of “ultranationalist groups in Southeast Asia” that, in retaliation, will launch biological weapons against the Brazilian population on the occasion of the musical festival “Rock in Rio” in its 2039 edition.
In brief summary, the document creates a hypothetical scenario in which Brazil’s alignment with the United States will no longer be a matter of political will, but of necessity and survival. In practice, a group of more than 500 military researchers created a myth to justify alignment with Washington, using predictions that lack meaning and material bases. The ultimate goal is simply to forcibly instill the belief that Brazil should become an American ally.
But the Brazilian military does not stop there. Recently, the Russian ship Yantar approached the Brazilian coast, having anchored for a few days in the state of Rio de Janeiro. When the ship was about 50 miles away from the beaches of Rio, the Brazilian Navy issued a communication signal that was not answered immediately. It happens, however, that the vessel responded to the communication attempts issued later, which was not enough for the Brazilian Navy to retreat in its false alarm that the Russian ship would be performing espionage services on the Brazilian coast, spreading the lie through several media agencies and creating an unnecessary tension atmosphere.
The scandal made by the Brazilian Navy would make any specialist in military and intelligence operations laugh. Do they really believe that such a vessel would be used for espionage purposes with such public exposure? Would the Brazilian State be irresponsible to the point of creating such an atmosphere of tension with Russia for absolutely nothing?
The scenario leads to believe that it is not a collective idiocy of Brazilian generals, but rather a very well-designed project to create an environment of fear in relation to everything that is not of interest to the United States. Chinese military presence in South America, Russian espionage, French threat, regional wars, biological terrorism – these are all imaginary threats meticulously created by military who are no longer interested in national defense, but in the country’s subordination to the hegemonic global power.
Brazil seems to be experiencing one of the worst moments in its history. Again, the higher generals are more committed to external interests than to the defense of their own country and seem to be willing to do anything to see Brazil becoming an American dependency.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report