Craig Murray

> I'm very disappointed by the lack of press for such a major extradition case!

I completely agree with you here, which is why I'm so glad that the last few articles Murray did on this have been posted here and getting at least some attention.

> What can we do other than sharing links to try and get the word out?

Sharing the articles by Murray and others is, I think, the best way. Protesting is a: somewhat unhelpful, because that doesn't seem to get picked up by the media either, and also because the government will most likely object to large protests due to the covid situation.

However, as Murray noted in other articles, news of the entire trial seems to get you shadowbanned from social media:

> Even my blog has never been so systematically subject to shadowbanning from Twitter and Facebook as now. Normally about 50% of my blog readers arrive from Twitter and 40% from Facebook. During the trial it has been 3% from Twitter and 9% from Facebook. That is a fall from 90% to 12%. In the February hearings Facebook and Twitter were between them sending me over 200,000 readers a day. Now they are between them sending me 3,000 readers a day. To be plain that is very much less than my normal daily traffic from them just in ordinary times. It is the insidious nature of this censorship that is especially sinister – people believe they have successfully shared my articles on Twitter and Facebook, while those corporations hide from them that in fact it went into nobody’s timeline.…

The article about NSA "getting ISIS" mentioned:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24520757

Once there, see the posts by bashinator and _kbh_ for other sources.

Back to the topic here, the "technical glitches" were present throughout the process, as reported day after day on:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

E.g.

"This hearing has frequently been interrupted by the strange incompetence of the Ministry of Justice in establishing simple videolinks."

"It was not Professor Feldstein’s fault the day finished in confused anti-climax. The court was unable to make the video technology work. For ten broken minutes out of about forty Feldstein was briefly able to give evidence, and even this was completely unsatisfactory as he and Mark Summers were repeatedly speaking over each other on the link."

Also playing with the times:

"Daniel Ellsberg was to give evidence this afternoon. Edward Fitzgerald QC applied for his videolink evidence to be heard at 3.15pm [(in England)] which is 07.15am in California where Dan lives. Baraitser insisted it could not be put back beyond 2.30 pm, thus forcing an 89 year old man [Daniel Ellsberg] to give evidence at 6.30am [(his local time)]. Simply stunning."

The use of internet was also intentionally restricted:

The judge "explained this by stating that the public could normally observe from within the courtroom, where she could control their behaviour. But if they had remote access, she could not control their behaviour and this was not in…

This is a very curious thing. I read the article, but I'm not exactly clear on why one is great and noble but the other is not. There's some undercurrent that I would paraphrase as 'limiting the harm' of the leaks by being selective, but that's premised on the idea that the public has no right to know and be informed of what its leaders are doing because diplomacy requires hypocrisy? Or something, at least.

I mean, when we get down to this sort of romanticized leaker's code or whatever you what to characterize this as, it seems like truth isn't seen as important, only the leaker's goal and how leaks can be managed via the press. But I would submit that this is no longer functioning very well. I mean, does anyone even believe content-free leaks any more? If you have anonymous officials saying they know things based on circumstantial evidence they won't let you see, can you really believe them knowing it's more than likely part of this gentlemanly leaker's code to plant information in the media?

I mean, just look at this for a recent example which discusses this vis a vis credibility quite extensively: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

The thing is, there's no reason to speculate here. We can infer how Podesta got hacked, based purely on public evidence. There's this nice DKIM-validated email, shortly before the leak ends: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34899

We know it hasn't been modified because it's signed…

Whatever your views on the particular case being blogged about below, it is widely regarded as being hugely important for the freedom of journalists and journalism. In fact I haven't heard the argument that it isn't, if there is one at all. I've also seen nothing to suggest that the below is some kind of bold fabrication. If you're not worried by it, you probably should be. Whenever you hear "They can't be trusted to analyse and come to the correct conclusion." Means _you_ can't and won't get the chance. Make up your own mind is difficult advice to follow when you're not allowed the information on which to do so.

>Even my blog has never been so systematically subject to shadowbanning from Twitter and Facebook as now. Normally about 50% of my blog readers arrive from Twitter and 40% from Facebook. During the trial it has been 3% from Twitter and 9% from Facebook. That is a fall from 90% to 12%. In the February hearings Facebook and Twitter were between them sending me over 200,000 readers a day. Now they are between them sending me 3,000 readers a day. To be plain that is very much less than my normal daily traffic from them just in ordinary times. It is the insidious nature of this censorship that is especially sinister – people believe they have successfully shared my articles on Twitter and Facebook, while those corporations hide from them that in fact it went into nobody’s timeline. My own family have not been getting their notifications of my posts on either…

Craig Murray's reaction is worth reading [1]. I realize he does not respond to the bail breach directly, but rather to what precipitated this chain of events.

> If the Swedish allegations against Julian Assange were genuine and not simply a ruse to arrest him for extradition to the United States, where is the arrest warrant now from Sweden and what are the charges?

> Only the more minor allegation has passed the statute of limitations deadline. The major allegation, equivalent to rape, is still well within limits. Sweden has had seven years to complete the investigation and prepare the case. It is over two years since they interviewed Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. They have had years and years to collect all the evidence and prepare the charges.

> So where, Swedish prosecutors, are your charges? Where is your arrest warrant?

> Julian Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden. He was merely “wanted for questioning”, a fact the MSM repeatedly failed to make clear. It is now undeniably plain that there was never the slightest intention of charging him with anything in Sweden. All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid.

> [...]

[1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/so-where-is-the-swedish-warrant/

This is a good question. Coverage of this trial has been hard to come by. Craig Murray is posting details to his blog but he's also not the most objective witness. Still, he wrote the following[0]:

"Magistrate Baraitser then made a statement about access to the court by remote hearing, by which she meant online. She stated that a number of access details had been sent out by mistake by the court without her agreement. She had therefore revoked their access permissions."

When I read this, I thought that only certain people had their remove access revoked, for instance Amnesty International. But then he goes on...

"Baraitser went on to say that it was important that the hearing was public, but she should only agree remote access where it was 'in the interests of justice', and having considered it she had decided it was not. She explained this by stating that the public could normally observe from within the courtroom, where she could control their behaviour. But if they had remote access, she could not control their behaviour and this was not in the 'interests of justice'."

That sounds to me like _everyone's_ remote access had been revoked.

[0]: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-the-assange-hearing-day-6/