So I took a trip this evening. I Googled ZNet and then clicked on it. Taking to a beg for money message. (Really, Michael, all these years later you're still begging for money? How very sad, how very, very sad.) Click that you don't want to donate and you're taken to a Z page where you have to pick ZNet again. You're taken to a page that you can't read because of a big ad across it and it takes forever after you click to get it off.
It's disgusting. So is the non-stop begging. I'm serious, when you get to be a certain age and you're still begging, you need to find something else to do. That's the universe's way of telling you you've chosen the wrong career path.
So why should you pay money to ZNet? For those Congressional reporters on their staff?
Oops, they don't have that. They don't have anything. In fact, they're reposting transcripts from Democracy Now! -- and not even concerned that Glenn Greenwald's lying.
I'm not a big fan of faux lefty Glenn and really wish he would spend all of his time in his little lovenest outside the US -- instead of just some of his time there.
Glenn's supposed to be telling about the judge's verdict but he either didn't read or just wants to lie. It's an arrest warrant that's out for Julian Assange and Assange was supposed to be questioned before he left Sweden.
That last one? You're thinking, "I know! Julian and his lawyer keep talking about that! Have for months! If they had a real case, they would have interviewed Julian when he was in Sweden waiting to be interviewed!"
That's not what I'm saying. The verdict, read it in full, goes over how that's a lie. It's a lie that Julian's Swedish attorney attempted to tell the British court and was then forced to admit that before Julian had left Sweden, the attorney had been contacted about questioning and had said it was a go. This was six or seven days before Assange left Sweden.
They lied. They lied over and over in the press and in the court. The judge is very clear on this. C.I. covered the judge's decision in yesterday's "Iraq snapshot." Because C.I.'s bolded decisions from the judge's opinion, I'm going to set off the excerpt with "****" indicating the start and I'll put "****" to indicate the end of the excerpt as well.
The attorneys are currently whining about all the money spent to translate paperwork (from Sweden) into English but, in their own documents submitted to the court, appeared to struggle with English. (I'm referring to repeated typos.) They also appeared to struggle with facts. Including who was president of the United States and when he became president of the United States (Barack Obama is president and became the president when he was sworn in January, 2009). When you have so many errors like that, you're not helping anyone. Why you needed to bring in the President of the United States into your paperwork about a matter between the governments of England and Sweden is beyond me but, having decided to, you need to get your facts right.
Not only did they struggle with facts in their paperwork, they struggled it with facts in their presentation. And they got caught lying. Repeatedly. Bjorn Hurtig has been Julian Assange's attorney for some time and fed the press repeated claims. Any smart person would have realized that Hurtig, a defense attorney, can say anything to the press and it doesn't have to be true. Instead, too many put faith in the claims Hurtig has been making since December. Hurtig bumped up against a judge that wasn't pleased with being lied to.
Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle's ruling can be read [PDF format warning] here in full. The big witnesses were Assange's attorney Hurtig and former judge Brita Sunderg-Weitman. The former judge didn't impress Riddle. After listing the many things Sunderg-Weitman claimed, Riddle notes, "In cross-examination the witness told me she is not an expert in Mutual Legal Assitance. She confirmed she had no direct personal knowledge of what happened in this investigation before Mr Assange left Sweden. Her evidence is based upon the facts supplied to her by the defence lawyers. [In her proof she said Ms Ny had made no effort to interview him before he left with her permission and knowledge on 27th September.] She confirmed that if the defence lawyer had told the prosecutor that he was unable to contact the defendant for interview, then the position would be different." The judge is referring to the fact that before Assange left Sweden, attempts were made to question him. His attorneys have lied about that repeatedly to the press leading idiots like Naomi Wolf to insist that if Sweden was serious, they would have questioned him before he left the country. As the court learned (and as Assange's attorney confessed), there was an attempt to question Assange. Their chief expert offered testimony that she was not qualified to offer. They brought an expert to the witness stand to give hearsay evidence. No, that doesn't impress. Check out the following sentence fragments:
*Overall the witness appeared unclear . . .
*At first she appeared to avoid the question . . .
* Again she had difficulty directly answering the question.
These are just the first set. The witness did not impress the judge for obvious reasons. He was bothered by the fact that she didn't know the facts independently and that she relied (unquestioningly) on the defense to feed her information. This was also an issue with witness Sven-Eric Alhem but the judge noted that, in his written evidence, Alhem had made it clear that he got his information from the defense.
Then there's the part of the judgment recounting when Hurtig had to admit that there was an effort to interview Assange and he'd been contacted September 22nd about it and agreed to it. After agreeing to that what happened? From the judgment:
In summary the lawyer was unable to tell me what attempts he made to contact his client, and whether he definitely left a message. It was put that he had a professional duty to tell his client, and whether he definitely left a message. It was put that he had a professional duty to tell his client of the risk of detention. He did not appear to accept that the risk was substantial or the need to contact his client was urgent.
It only gets worse. The judge notes, "Mr Hurtig was asked why he told Brita Sundberg-Wietman that Ms Nye had made no effort to his client. He denied saying that and said he has never met her." Right there, you've got a huge problem. Their star witness has her facts wrong and states she got them from Hurtig. Hurtig, after being forced to admit the truth, then denies he ever spoke to the star witness. It gets worse. Confronted with what he wrote down and submitted to the court, Hurtig has to admit "that is wrong. He had forgotten [. . .] They must have slipped his mind." Slipped his mind? The judge didn't buy that claim.
Riddle continues, "He also agreed that it is important that what he says is right and important for his client that his evidence is credible." The judge then notes that the witness asserted he had a flight to catch, "The witness was clearly uncomfortable and anxious to leave."
As bad as that is-- and it's bad -- we're not even to the basic findings Judge Riddel offers -- 19 points on pages nine and ten. We'll emphasize two. First, here he is on Julian Assange's attorney Hurtig (the one Ray McGovern and Naomi Wolf have relied on when attacking the women who may have been raped):
10. Mr Hurtig [is] an unreliable witness as to what efforts he made to contaact his client between 21st, 22nd and 29th September (see transcript pages 122-132). He has no record of those attempts. They were by mobile phone, but he has no record. He cannot recall whether he sent texts or simply left answer-phone messages.
And point 15 goes along with that:
15. Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Nye made no effort to interview his client. In fact this is untrue. He says he realised the mistake the night before giving evidence. He did correct the statement in his evidence in chief (transcript p.83 and p.97). However, this was very low key and not done in a way that I, at least, immediately grasped as significant. It was only in cross-examination that the extent of the mistake became clear. Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he sbumitted it. I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. For over a week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a very important matter. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sunderberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem. Had they been given the true facts then they would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way.
When your attorney is ruled "an unreliable witness," you and your case have problems. Now Assange had a respectable lawyer but he wouldn't play the game Hurtig will and that's why Julian Assange dropped him. Now he's got a lawyer who lied repeatedly to the press and who the jugde caught in one lie after another.
The offshore tax haven that is Glenn-Glenn is an idiot. He didn't know what he was talking about or he was lying, take your pick. (I choose lying because he's lied so damn much in the past.)
Julian Assange is their poster boy, they beat off to him. Don't confuse it with revolution or protest and certainly don't mistake them for truth tellers. They're still trying to tell you that Saint Julian could end up in Guantanamo or in the military brig!!!!!!
They're such liars. I really can't stomach them and shame on you, Michael, no wonder you have to beg for money.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):