Consortium News is in London to cover the formal extradition process of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange and has provided updates throughout the week.

THURSDAY

11:30 pm London time: The judge has adjourned the hearings a day earlier than planned. It will resume in Woolwich Crown Court on May 18.

The defense this week seriously undermined the prosecutors’ case that Assange had endangered lives of informants, had “solicited” classified material from Chelsea Manning, and had helped Manning crack a password to enter a government computer. The defense showed Manning had legal access to the database and did not need a user name or password. Assange was helping her download video games and movies forbidden to U.S. soldiers.

The defense also laid out its evidence that Assange actually worked to protect informants; and that Manning had not responded to WikiLeaks‘ solicitations, a charge that ignores that asking sources for classified information is a routine journalistic practice.

The last two days of the hearings were consumed by the question of whether Assange was being accused of political offenses, and whether the British-U.S. extradition treaty or British domestic law on extraditions would apply. The question of whether Assange was being given a fair trial also arose, given that he is cut off from communication with his attorneys during the proceedings, while being locked in a glass cage behind them.

Assange lawyer Jen Robinson summed up the week and Kristinn Hrafnsson Thursday’s events:

#JulianAssange's lawyer @suigenerisjen gives a final recap of the #AssangeHearing week's proceedings: "Mr. #Assange has had significant difficulties in participating with these proceedings… the Judge has refused him to leave the dock an sit with his lawyers." #AssangeCase pic.twitter.com/VUsEIssuGh — Don't Extradite Assange (@DEAcampaign) February 27, 2020

6:00 pm London time: The argument continued from Wednesday about whether Britain’s domestic Extradition Act of 2003 or the 2007 U.S.-British Extraction Treaty takes precedence.

Defense: It's not sufficient to say domestic legislation is sufficient, and where there is a treaty that provides additional protection, we say that it is arbitrary not to respect that protection. — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 27, 2020

An element of the abuse of process is the failure to provide the protection within the treaty: the US are relying on the treaty for his extradition but failing to comply with the fundamental protection under the US-UK Treaty. — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 27, 2020

…& when the courts give effect to statute consistent w/ treaty as much as possible, then of course the court looks at the interpretation of the treaty. US saying that you cannot interpret the treaty is falsified by centuries of precedent where courts have done precisely that. — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 27, 2020

Back to the argument whether WikiLeaks has had an effect on policy, defense made this point:

Was actually Cablegate that had impact here: "Cable revealing executions of Iraqi farmer's family. Led Iraqi govt to refuse to grant US troops immunity from war crimes prosecutions. It helped spur Obama's decision to withdraw forces from Iraq"https://t.co/uhoy8f4UYj — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 27, 2020

1:20 pm London time: Defense is arguing that WikiLeaks work is to affect change in policy.

Ed Fitzgerald: what other point could there be to publish evidence of war crimes, torture and human rights abuses if not to produce a change in policy? "WikiLeaks did effect a change, this is one of the reasons policy did change" re: Iraq withdrawal #Assange — Naomi Colvin (@auerfeld) February 27, 2020

Defense: Why was he seeking to publish the rules of engagement? They were published to show that war crimes were being committed, to show they breached their own rules of engagement. — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 27, 2020

The Guantanamo files were published to show that torture was being done in the war on terror. The very definition of seeking to change government policy — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 27, 2020

And with the Iraq war logs / Collateral Murder video with Rules of Engagnement: "WikiLeaks did effect a change, this is one of the reasons policy did change", led to US withdrawal from Iraq — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 27, 2020

Issues to be dealt with after lunch break include Assange in the dock and the anonymous witnesses (whether the court but not the public can know the names of the 2 witnesses on UC Global's spying on the Ecuadorian Embassy — defense and prosecution to confer and agree over break — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 27, 2020

12:10 pm London time: Assange is back in his glass cage at the back of the courtroom. The court gave him headphones to help him hear what is going on, but he soon after took them off. The spectacle on Wednesday, in which Assange said he was no more a participant in his own hearing that “a spectator at Wimbledon,” underscored the pettiness and even sadism of the governor of Belmarsh prison. What other reason to separate Assange from his attorneys in the courtroom, when murder suspects routinely sit with their lawyers, what other reason to strip search him, handcuff him 11 times, put him five different cells and take away his legal papers on Monday than to simply humiliate him and show that his life is in their abusive hands?

12:00 pm London time: The prosecution resumed its argument from Wednesday that Assange’s offense against the United States is not political. Ironically, James Lewis QC, arguing for the U.S., says Assange’s aim would have had to have been to change the U.S. government, for his “crime” to be political offense. Ironic, because most Assange critics believe he tried to change the government by denying Hillary Clinton the presidency. Assange is being charged only for activities in 2010 not 2016. This argument illustrates how the U.S. is grasping at straws in this case.

lewis argues that a political offence would involve having an aim to change the government, in this case of America. Suggests it is not clear this was #Assange's goal. — James Doleman (@jamesdoleman) February 27, 2020

WEDNESDAY

4:45 pm London time: Julian Assange’s attorney Edward Fitzgerald QC is arguing in Woolwich Crown Court that the U.S. charges against Assange are political, as espionage is a political crime, and thus in violation of Article 4.1 of the U.S.-British extradition treaty. However the prosecution is putting forth the argument that the UK Extradition Act, the implementing domestic legislation for the treaty, does not preclude political offenses. Further, the U.S. is arguing in court that the charges are not political in nature.

For the first time, Assange spoke directly to the court, saying he wanted to leave the bullet-proof glass cage and sit with his lawyers. “I am as much a participant in these proceedings as a spectator at Wimbledon,” Assange told the judge, who replied that his attorneys could apply for bail so that he may leave the cage. Fitzgerald told the court: “This is a gentle man of intellectual nature, there is no reason why he should not sit with us.”

@suigenerisjen on the proceedings happening today in the #AssangeCase : 'Espionage is the traditional and typical political offense.' #Assange pic.twitter.com/Auu5CroGQT — Don't Extradite Assange (@DEAcampaign) February 26, 2020

Skeleton arguments for today's arguments on the political

offence exception in the UK-US Extradition Treaty: Defense submission: https://t.co/84eZLIYmI1 Prosecution submission: https://t.co/38jkeGjr4l Defense response: https://t.co/P8iOVHSPcQ — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 26, 2020

#AssangeCase Day 3 Espionage is a 'pure political offense' pic.twitter.com/cwMTBu7B0b — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 26, 2020

Defense notes the conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, the crime Assange was charged with before any Espionage Act offenses, is an Espionage Act allegation — Kevin Gosztola (@kgosztola) February 26, 2020

Fitzgerald is tying it together now: the bigger point he is trying to establish is that in his view Assange is being extradited for political offences, which he says he has established is illegal under English domestic law, Article 5 of the ECHR and the US/UK extradition treaty. — Mac William Bishop (@MacWBishop) February 26, 2020

Fitzgerald notes the right of due process has been part of English law since the Magna Carta and is a key element of the US constitution.#Assange — James Doleman (@jamesdoleman) February 26, 2020

Treaty between the USA and the United Kingdom on Extradition (signed in 2003, entered into force in 2007): https://t.co/V6ezA5vZnz — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 26, 2020

Article 4(1) of the US-UK Extradition Treaty: "Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense." pic.twitter.com/DMsqxmWMRo — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 26, 2020

Edward Fitzgerald QC for #Assange, on Article 4(1) of the UK-US Extradition Treaty: "this particular treaty provision enshrining a fundamental defence against extradition for political offences, recognised for about a century, is a fundamental right" — Naomi Colvin (@auerfeld) February 26, 2020

Fitzgerald notes again that the treaty was ratified after the act of parliament and there is nothing in the act that specifically excludes that defence when it is contained in the treaty.#Assange — James Doleman (@jamesdoleman) February 26, 2020

Fitzgerald then turns to the prosecution’s submissions of precedents, dismissing it as an effort to assert English domestic law has no bearing on its treaty obligations: “You’ll see the whole sad litany of cases attempting to establish a disregard for international law.” — Mac William Bishop (@MacWBishop) February 26, 2020

Fitzgerald is connecting US Constitutional requirement for due process to ECHR & even Magna Carta as establishing provisions against arbitrary detention – which is what Assange’s detention amounts to, Fitzgerald says, as he’s being held for extradition over “political offences.” — Mac William Bishop (@MacWBishop) February 26, 2020

Defense notes the US writes a 'political offense' exception in all its other treaties — but when someone invokes it to not send someone to the US, they object — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 26, 2020

Judge is fixed on the UK Extradition Act passed in 2003 that went into force in 2004. Defense emphasizes the US-UK treaty in force was ratified by UK in 2007. It did not discourage reliance on “political offenses” provisions to protect from unlawful extradition. #Assange — Kevin Gosztola (@kgosztola) February 26, 2020

– Article 5 of ECHR is in section 87 of the Treaty which notes extradition cant occur if its incompatible of human rights, and it is arbitrary

– There may well be a jus cogen norm protecting, from extradition for a political offence for a none violent situation… — M. A. E. (@MElmaazi) February 26, 2020

…(exception may only apply to situations for which there is a violent offence such a terrorism). If it is not a terrorism case, a violent case, then our submission the principle is of virtually universal application, it dates back 100 years its in every UN treaty… — M. A. E. (@MElmaazi) February 26, 2020

… its in EU convention on extradition, its on the Interpol convention. The US of course writes it in to every treaty, but then when someone invokes this the other way they say [sorry] well that we say is inconsistent…" – Edward Fitzgerald QC submitting for the defence — M. A. E. (@MElmaazi) February 26, 2020

From defense’s reply to prosecution, which has come up in this argument from defense. Prosecutors haven’t spoken on this matter in court, but judge is advancing their argument. Defense insists UK 2003 Extradition Act shouldn’t be license to disregard treaty protection #Assange pic.twitter.com/pbFqCvybIp — Kevin Gosztola (@kgosztola) February 26, 2020

Judge: US, do you accept these offenses are political offenses? US: we don't accept they are 'pure political offenses,' they are 'relative political offenses' Break now for 15 mins – since the parties disagree on this, they'll both have to make their arguments after — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 26, 2020

Under the umbrella of “abuse of process,” defense is putting a lot in the record that would be useful at High Court, Appeal Court, Supreme Court, or European Court of Human Rights. Because the judge may not be receptive to much of their defense case. #Assange — Kevin Gosztola (@kgosztola) February 26, 2020

US is claiming Espionage is not a 'purely political offense' — defense cites case law on the "distinction between ‘purely political crimes’ and ‘relative political crimes which are common crimes with a political overlay’" pic.twitter.com/bQ0s0TPKIA — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 26, 2020

Fitzgerald is now quoting from Fox News calling Assange a “terrorist,” using this to assert that the political nature of the charges against Assange are evident. — Mac William Bishop (@MacWBishop) February 26, 2020

Fitzgerald: Purely political offenses lack essential elements of common crime. Person is acting on basis of their beliefs. That is expressly what is alleged in indictment, crimes committed against United States. “Classic example” of political offenses #Assange — Kevin Gosztola (@kgosztola) February 26, 2020

Update from @khrafnsson Kristinn Hrafnsson on #AssangeCase : 'The United States does not make any treaty unless in contains the exemption on political offence'#Assange pic.twitter.com/KkweonODY5 — Don't Extradite Assange (@DEAcampaign) February 26, 2020

Defense explaining that even if you ignore the term "Espionage Act" (which you shouldn't), simply looking at the *conduct* alleged should lead you to conclude the offenses are purely political pic.twitter.com/lwt9KG7iMB — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 26, 2020

Fitzgerald: a French court refused to extradite David Shayler on Official Secrets Act (1989) charges back in 1998 because of the prohibition on extradition for political offences in A3 of the @coe European Convention on Extradition. https://t.co/5qbUmUac6N #Assange — Naomi Colvin (@auerfeld) February 26, 2020

Fitzgerald: by stating that #Assange damaged US security and intelligence interests, US foreign affairs, WL as "intelligence agency of the people", DOJ's own language supports that these are political offences. — Naomi Colvin (@auerfeld) February 26, 2020

The UN draft treaty on extradition, the European Convention and the Interpol convention all contain general prohibitions against extradition for political offences, Fitzgerald says, continuing at length the defence argument that consequently Assange should not be extradited. — Mac William Bishop (@MacWBishop) February 26, 2020

What does this have to do with Assange? The extradition claims crimes were committed against the United States government. These are alleged crimes against a state, which defense believes is political so they aren’t covered by extradition #Assange — Kevin Gosztola (@kgosztola) February 26, 2020

Defense cites the cases of Katharine Gunn and Alfred Dreyfus — 3.12 here: https://t.co/9M27qrJ8if pic.twitter.com/4LirlNItWR — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 26, 2020

#WoolwichCrownCourt Julian #Assange #extraditionHearing: Fitzgerald QC (JA’s defense): #DavidShayler provided secret docs on #MI5 secret ops against #Qaddafi in violation of the UK OfficialSecretsAct: France rejected a UK extradition request for Shayler: offenses were POLITICAL — stefania maurizi (@SMaurizi) February 26, 2020

Prosecutors, intelligence officials, politicians, and others in US constantly ascribe motives to Julian Assange that accuse him of "hostility" toward the United States. That very fact is evidence to the defense that these allegations are "political offenses." — Kevin Gosztola (@kgosztola) February 26, 2020

US Government now argues in response: "[Assange] is not entitled to derive any rights from the [US-UK Extradition] Treaty” – because it has not been incorporated into domestic law — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 26, 2020

The 2003 Act is silent on whether extradition can be barred because the offense charged is 'political' https://t.co/dD138mlE4W pic.twitter.com/21BYk3b9tj — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 26, 2020

Assange is asked is he is ok to continue, he says he cannot speak to his legal team confidentially as he is flanked by guards, "I have very little contact with my lawyers." — James Doleman (@jamesdoleman) February 26, 2020

Julian #Assange is speaking now to the Magistrate; that he cannot instruct his lawyers; that there is no privacy, he cannot participate. He cannot speak to his lawyer’s, without any confidence. Judge orders him to cease speaking; its not allowed for a Defendant to speak. — Diani Barreto (@diani_barreto) February 26, 2020

Assange- "This case already has enough spying on my lawyers as it is." — Ben Lewis (@benlewismedia) February 26, 2020

“I’m as much a participant in this court as a spectator at the Wimbledon” #Assange said as he complained of his trouble hearing proceedings. The court has raised for a short break — Niels (@NielsLadefoged) February 26, 2020

Defense is asking whether Assange could be removed from the dock (the glass enclosure), and could sit with his Defense team, saying that they understand the prosecutors do not object to this. Baraitser says that she suspects the security team will not agree to this. — Mac William Bishop (@MacWBishop) February 26, 2020

This is exacerbated by a medical condition.

Defence asks If Assange can be allowed to sit with his defence team, judge says this is not a matter for her and they would need to make a formal application.

"He's no threat to anyone," Fitzgerald says. — James Doleman (@jamesdoleman) February 26, 2020

Baraitser asks Fitzgerald if he really thinks she is able to adjudicate on a matter related to security, or if he wishes to make an application for bail to permit Assange to leave the dock. — Mac William Bishop (@MacWBishop) February 26, 2020

The magistrate now asks if Assange is happy to continue, noting that he appears tired. Assange stands and responds, complaining that “the problem is I cannot participate, I cannot privately communicate with my lawyers.” — Mac William Bishop (@MacWBishop) February 26, 2020

The defense is asking the court to make a determination as to whether the charges are political offences as might be determined by a US court, Lewis says, which is not the function of an extradition hearing. — Mac William Bishop (@MacWBishop) February 26, 2020

Edward Fitzgerald QC: ""this is a gentle man of intellectual nature, there is no reason why he should not sit with us" #Assange — Naomi Colvin (@auerfeld) February 26, 2020

US gov continuing to make its case that domestic law must take precedence, that the bar against extradition for political offenses in the treaty doesn't matter and to rule based on the treaty instead of domestic law would deny parliament's sovereignty — Courage Foundation (@couragefound) February 26, 2020

Julian #Assange's father John Shipton slams court proceedings in the #AssangeCase pic.twitter.com/WJZeGzM8Up — Don't Extradite Assange (@DEAcampaign) February 26, 2020

Editor-in-Chief Joe Lauria took part in a forum on Assange on Tuesday night at St. Pancras Church:

TUESDAY

11:45 pm London time: Consortium News was in the courtroom for the full hearing on Tuesday. Editor-in-Chief Joe Lauria filed this report:

With the sound of protestors permeating the walls of Woolwich Crown Court, Assange’s defense presented the first part of its case, demolishing the U.S. government’s extradition submission:

regarding Assange helping Chelsea Manning crack a password; i.e. allegedly participating in the theft of government documents;

the use of WikiLeaks Most Wanted List of stories as a way to supposedly “solicit” stories from Manning,

that Assange recklessly endangered the lives of U.S. informants.

Assange attorney Mark Summers revealed that Assange’s supposed attempt to help Manning “hack” a government computer for secret documents was actually an attempt to help her crack a password to download video games, movies and music videos, forbidden on military computers.

Summers says Manning had legal access to classified material and did not need a user name or a password to get into the database. The Espionage Act indictment says Assange helped Manning sign in under an administrator’s password in order to help get secrets, not the latest video game.

The U.S. government’s case is based on “lies, lies and more lies,” Summers told the court. Summers said that there’s no evidence Manning ever saw WikiLeak‘s wish list, and she provided material that wasn’t asked for. Manning gave WikiLeaks the U.S. Rules of Engagement in Iraq to show that the Collateral Murder video had violated those rules, not because Assange had asked for it, Summers said.

It is difficult to understand how a journalist asking sources to provide the information, even classified information, can be construed as a crime.

Summers also gave a detailed explanation about why the government’s assertion that Assange had endangered the lives of U.S. informants was false. He explained that Assange had instituted a Harm Mitigation Program to redact the names of informants and other people that might be at risk, a program so stringent that David Leigh of The Guardian complained to Der Spiegel, two publications partnering with WikiLeaks, that too much time was being wasted.

A Spiegel journalist said it was the extreme measures he had ever experienced. Summers also told the court that The Guardian was responsible for publishing the password for the encrypted, un-redacted State Department cables that WikiLeaks and its media partners were slowly and carefully running out. When The Guardian made the entire archive available, Assange called the State Department to warn them.

“You might think that would be something you would have known when the government submitted the extradition request,” Summers told Baraister.

In the extradition hearing, America's QC claimed Julian #Assange failed to redact names and risked lives. In fact, the Guardian reporters, Leigh and Harding, revealed the secret password in their book: a truth the Guardian now distorts. Read this …https://t.co/8rlvXkqneW — John Pilger (@johnpilger) February 27, 2020

Before the hearing began Tuesday a court officer instructed Kristinn Hrafnsson, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, that he had been instructed to bar the “head of WikiLeaks” from entering the public gallery, a glassed-in room with two rows of seats high above the small courtroom.

John Shipton, Assange’s father, and Assange’s brother Gabriel and Hrafnsson protested and left the cramped area where 18 people lined up to get into the gallery. A few minutes later they returned. Hrafnsson said sending out a few tweets got the court authorities to change their mind. He said no explanation for why the court wanted him barred was given.

The family sat down to hear Assange’s lawyers complaining that on Monday Assange had been intimidated by prison authorities, being strip searched, handcuffed 11 times, made to stay in five different cells and had legal documents he was studying taken away from him. Judge Vanessa Baraister told the court she had no jurisdiction over how Assange is being mistreated.

During the hearing Assange is separated from his lawyers in room at the back of the court behind bullet-proof glass. He wore a gray jumper and blazer and looked to have aged well beyond his 48 years. He appeared mostly able to focus on the proceedings, at times intensely. He sent word to the judge through one of his lawyers that he wished to sit among his attorneys in the courtroom.

The hearing resumes on Wednesday.

Also from Monday’s hearing, Assange’s lawyers said in court that the U.S. had plans to assassinate Assange by faking a kidnapping.

Editor-in-chief Joe Lauria was interviewed by RT.

MONDAY

6:45 pm London time: WikiLeaks tweets that the defense will present its case “in earnest” on Tuesday at Woolwich Crown Court. Consortium News will continue its Live Updates Tuesday unless it gets a place inside the courtroom, in which case we will present a report at the end of the day.

Defense begins in earnest Tomorrow https://t.co/fgq8D0zptr — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) February 24, 2020

Assange’s lawyer tells court prosecution cares little for justice and is politically motivated. Says extradition should be barred because of prosecutions’ “political motives.” Judge is told that Assange will not likely give testimony during this opening week of the hearing.

Julian Assange's lawyer Edward Fitzgerald QC: "Prosecution is not motivated by genuine concern for criminal justice but by politics.

"This extradition should be barred because the prosecution is being pursued for political motives and not in good faith." — Tristan Kirk (@kirkkorner) February 24, 2020

He says Assange would face "inhuman and degrading treatment" and attacks Pres. Trump: "(He) came into power with a new approach for freedom of the press… amounting effectively to declaring war on investigative journalists." — Tristan Kirk (@kirkkorner) February 24, 2020

Mr Fitzgerald restates the claim that Assange was offered a pardon through a Trump intermediary, and says Assange will dispute the 'misleading' claim that WikiLeaks published unredacted cables. — Tristan Kirk (@kirkkorner) February 24, 2020

Judge told it is 'very unlikely' that Julian Assange will give evidence during the extradition hearing. — Tristan Kirk (@kirkkorner) February 24, 2020

3:10 pm London time: U.S. lawyer in court is trying to turn normal journalistic practice into a crime by confusing Assange’s attempts to help Chelsea Manning (who had top secret clearance and legal access to the documents she leaked) hide her identity by logging in as an administrator, not to help her hack the material, which she didn’t need to do. The two indictments against Assange make it perfectly clear that that is what happened and that Assange was not engaged in hacking.

Nearing the end of his #Assange opening, US lawyer mentions phone hacking by the News of the World: "There's no licence to commit a criminal offence simply because you say it's for a journalistic purpose. There is no public interest defence under the Computer Misuse Act". — Tristan Kirk (@kirkkorner) February 24, 2020

2:55 pm London time: The hundreds of people demonstrating outside Woolwich Crown Court are making so much noise that it is making it difficult to hear inside the courtroom. Even Assange said so.

Julian Assange has told the court he is "having difficulty concentrating – this noise is not helpful". He wants the demo to stop disrupting the court proceedings. "I'm very appreciative of the public support, I understand they must be disgusted", #Assange said. https://t.co/MJ6WIfrctW — Tristan Kirk (@kirkkorner) February 24, 2020

2:50 pm London time: WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson has left the courthouse and addressed the media. He asked why the court was discussing the alleged harm done by the releases on Afghanistan and Iraq in 2010 and not the war crimes that those documents revealed. “That is what we should be talking about in a courtroom in this country.

Breaking: @khrafnsson leaves courtroom and asks "why aren't we here talking in court about the war crimes, the assassination of innocent civilians?" #assange@TheCanaryUK pic.twitter.com/zXCRjqq5db — John McEvoy (@jmcevoy_2) February 24, 2020

12:08 pm London time: Julian Assange’s father, John Shipton, spoke with the press outside the courthouse during a break and denounced the prosecutors’ allegation that Assange had endangered the lives of U.S. informants:

“The essential part of the argument of the prosectors’ case is that WikiLeaks publications endangered sources. This is simply not true. The Pentagon admitted, under oath, in Chelsea Manning’s trial that nobody had been hurt by the releases. Robert Gates, ex-secretary of defense, in testimony before Congress said it’s awkward, it’s embarrassing, but no damage was done. I’ll note that the prosecutor didn’t give one example of a broken fingernail. He just said sources were endangered. Well it’s simply not true.”

Longtime Assange associate, Joseph Farrell, also spoke to the press:

Breaking: WikiLeaks spokesperson Joseph Farrell at the recess says the prosecution has proposed a "flat contradiction and a repeat of the Manning trial" pic.twitter.com/S2cS1k0XWj — John McEvoy (@jmcevoy_2) February 24, 2020

11:45 am London time: The formal hearing to determine whether Julian Assange will be extradited to the United States to stand trial on 17 counts of the Espionage Act has begun in London on Monday morning. Assange’s lawyers arrived at Woolwich Crown Court with stacks of evidence that will presented during the first week of the hearing, which will resume in May.

Yellow Vests, who’ve traveled to London from Paris to protest outside the courthouse, present a vest to John Shipton to give to his son Julian Assange.

U.S. prosecutors began by arguing that Assange is not a journalist and that he risked the lives of U.S. informants.

BREAKING: UK/US GOVERNMENT CLAIM ASSANGE IS BEING PURSUED FOR RISKING OR PUBLISHING NAMES OF SOURCES PUTTING THEM AT RISK. "#JULIANASSANGE IS NO JOURNALIST" HE'S NOT CHARGED WITH PUBLISHING EMBARRISING OR AWKWARD INFO@SputnikInt pic.twitter.com/9Qgt8DYPEu — M. A. E. (@MElmaazi) February 24, 2020

Revealing the names of U.S. informants is not a crime and is not listed on Assange’s indictment as a statute U.S. prosecutors are alleging Assange has violated. After more than ten years, there is absolutely no evidence that any informant’s life was harmed by WikiLeaks revelations, said WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson at a press conference on Wednesday.