10 ms·

Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day 11

85 points by bainsfather 6y ago

dash2 6y ago
Craig Murray is on record expressing skepticism that Russia was involved in the Salisbury poisoning. Judge his trustworthiness accordingly.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Scepticism in this case is closer to "My mind is suspiciously open and my brain has fallen out onto the table in front of me", he questioned that they were poisoned at all let alone by the Russians. Murray also said that he was approached with DNC emails, which means that unless he was lying someone has sounded him out as a source (and we know where they came from) edit: mouthpiece not source.
- rory_isAdonk 6y ago
  Fair, sadly this is the best coverage we can get on one of the most important trials in recent history in regards to press freedom. The fact that there is neither wide spread protest/voicing of support in the media, or at least coverage is depressing beyond belief.
  - foldr 6y ago
    This isn't a trial, it's an extradition hearing. It's not newsworthy primarily because nothing particularly surprising or interesting has happened or is likely to happen. We know what Assange is charged with and, to some extent, the nature of the evidence against him. All that remains is to wait for the decision. The trial, if there is one, is likely to get more coverage.
    - k1m 6y ago
      I guess the International Bar Association calling the hearing a "serious undermining of due process and the rule of law" and having Amnesty International denied access to monitor it isn't all that surprising or newsworthy.
      - foldr 6y ago
        Indeed it isn't, as there is a long history of such absurd hystronics in commentary on the Assange case. The thing about "monitoring" is particularly stupid. It's a public hearing and any organization can "monitor" it all they like. What AI can't do is appoint itself to a position above the British justice system.
        DanBC 6y ago
        I agree with you that a lot of the commmentary around Assange is stupid, but I wanted to point out that... > It's a public hearing and any organization can "monitor" it all they like. ...because of covid the normally public courts are allowing far fewer people in to view the hearings, and the online substitute is difficult to access. As I understand it AI applied to be allowed to view the court session remotely, and were denied permission, and the reasons for that denial are unclear. The Transparency Project talks about difficulties reporters and bloggers face accessing the English family courts, and some of these are similar problems. www.transparencyproject.org.uk/
        foldr 6y ago
        That's a fair point, but I'd say two things in response. First, what you're saying just goes to show that any issues there have been are unlikely to be the result of anti-Assange conspiracies. Second, journalists from a variety of news sources - some of them sympathetic to Assange - have been able to view the hearing. It's not as if some major shenanigans could be pulled without anyone knowing. Nor do I think that the British justice system is so corrupt that it needs to be "monitored", like elections in a banana republic. By the way, AI's website claims that they will be remotely monitoring the hearings (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/uk-assange-extradition-hearing-will-be-a-key-test-for-uk-and-us-justice/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/uk-assange-ex...). Are you sure they can't see them? Edit: I found the following on Twitter. The explanation given makes sense to me. https://twitter.com/StefSimanowitz/status/1303288781714468865?s=20 https://twitter.com/StefSimanowitz/status/130328878171446886... (Twitter sucks. Scroll down in that thread to see the screenshot of the explanation.) See also this HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24491776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24491776
    - HugeAcumen 6y ago
      Before people engage with this gent I would point them to his recent conversations here. Many people, at length, have tried to engage and explain to him the import of these proceedings in good faith. He was provided reputable links many times, which he deemed "conspiracy theories", refusing to engage in the facts within. A significant portion of his recent history, in fact, is people begging him to read the facts; his replies come in the form "you Assange conspiracists ..." I don't want to break HN rules on calling people out, but the above are straight facts that people really ought to be aware of before trying with this guy again. It astounds me that people are putting Chomsky, Hersh, Pilger, Ellsberg, etc, who have all made dire warnings about this extraordinary case, in the box of "Assange conspiracists" - and getting away with it.
      - foldr 6y ago
        You're mischaracterizing my recent post history and attacking me personally rather than what I'm saying. I'm not a mod, but yes, I'd say that is against the guidelines.
        dang 6y ago
        I've given the users attacking you a thorough scolding for breaking the site guidelines, but you've also been breaking the site guidelines by using this site for flamewar, by posting excessively on this issue and dropping swipes like "you Assange conspiracists" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24408007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24408007). It's not surprising that you provoked this sort of reaction from others on the opposite side of the issue from you. That's not cool, and if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to using this site as intended, we'd appreciate it. To use HN as intended means primarily posting thoughtful, substantive comments on topics of intellectual curiosity. Internet polemics are tedious and nasty, and that gets truer as the topic gets hotter and more sensational. Assange threads, for example, already years ago became repetitive to the point of utter pointlessness. Nobody's convincing anybody—people are just beating each other with the same talking points over and over. If that's the game you want to play on the internet, please do it somewhere else.
- jjgreen 6y ago
  Scepticism is healthy, particularly when dealing with statements so vehemently asserted by the state. Do you have some examples of Murray's reporting on the Assange case being untrustworthy?
- the-dude 6y ago
  Skepticism. Yes please.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    The line between Sceptic and useful idiot is subtle sometimes. I read some of Murray's doubts - some of them hold weight (as in they are noteworthy), sure, and it's almost certain that SIS cleaned up the story (They aren't the police - the only material that gets published is published because it's useful) but Murray has _zero_ insider knowledge here. If you are questioning that it was a poisoning at all you better have something to stand on. He has consistently been pointing in the opposite direction to the western line for years, and never correct in any case I can see. He claimed he had spoken to the "person" who leaked the DNC emails - if he actually thinks that he is either unbelievably naive or acting in bad faith. "The US and Saudi Arabia have every reason to instigate a split between Germany and Russia at this time. Navalny is certainly a victim of international politics. That he is a victim of Putin I tend to doubt." Make your own mind up. edit: -2 but no counterargument, wheres the fun in that
    - pydry 6y ago
      Navalny had a LOT of enemies in Russia, not just putin. It's hardly an outrageous conspiracy theory to suggest that somebody more LDPR-aligned than Putin-aligned poisoned him, especially since they're the ones who made Litvinenko's killer an MP. It's interesting the ways in which our own domestic propaganda can inform our worldviews.
      - mhh__ 6y ago
        With Novichok? Why bother with a highly specialized nerve agent when you could use a gun? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/17/alexei-navalny-novichok-bottle-of-water-hotel-room https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/17/alexei-navalny...
        pydry 6y ago
        Yes. You're skeptical that a far right Russian political network might have strong military connections who would have access? I would also be skeptical of this idea if I truly believed that Putin had the extreme iron grip over military/FSB that he tries to portray. I believe it's quite a bit more chaotic there than he'd want you to believe though. I'm sure their opsec is not as good as it is in the US. After the SU fell they even auctioned off arms. As to why not a gun - 1) it's quiet and surreptitious. 2) I reckon it might also be a message TO putin 3) I'm pretty sure they would want putin to be seen as responsible for the murder.
- dontcarethrow2 6y ago
  Sounds like a trustworthy guy, not afraid to go against establishment, something we need in our journalists, thanks for pointing it out.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    He was completely wrong in his spat with Bellingcat https://twitter.com/eliothiggins/status/1047597999105462272?lang=en https://twitter.com/eliothiggins/status/1047597999105462272?... https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/09/06/god-level-trolling-russian-ministry-foreign-affairs-spokesperson-maria-zakharova-promotes-debunked-internet-conspiracy-theories-skripal-nerve-agent-attack/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/09/06/god... He was also fired from the foreign office in 2004, make of what I have provided as you will.
    - dontcarethrow2 6y ago
      To err is human, to repeatedly try to discredit the only source we get from this trample on 'freedom of speech' is.. fishy. Classic smear tactics, so passive, so cool. Hats off to you gents, fiction isn't this sweet.
      - mhh__ 6y ago
        Trust but Verify
      - dash2 6y ago
        There are plenty of people reporting on the Assange trial.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Just because someone is counter culture doesn't make him right. The only reason this post is even on HN has more to do with confirmation bias than any truth.
- Niksko 6y ago
  I'd love to have other sources to read. Unfortunately it seems like there aren't any, because nobody is being allowed to sit in the gallery on this pretty important case. Huge red flag right there.
  - rory_isAdonk 6y ago
    As would I, why there isn't a rolling coverage section in the Guardian is beyond me? Obviously the case doesnt make them look good, but it's incredibly important.
  - dash2 6y ago
    See the discussion about Covid above. This comment is misleading in that context.
- roenxi 6y ago
  The Salisbury poisoning was bizarre. The Russians had arrested Sergei, then spy-swapped him in 2010. So the Russians have to have figured out a reason, after a decade, that suddenly this man had to die in a grizzly and obvious assassination. Despite the fact they already had him under arrest and decided he wasn't all that important to them. It is very hard to imagine what that reason would be. And on the converse, anglosphere intelligence services have a history of lying. It is reasonable to question the Salisbury poisoning. It is hard to see what was in it for Russia. There wasn't an outcome here that is good for them, so it is unclear why they would have done it.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    To prove that they can get anyone, anywhere? Is that really that hard to get? They aren't exactly quiet about what might happen to someone who doesn't play ball. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-traitors-kick-bucket-sergei-skripal-latest-video-30-pieces-silver-a8243206.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-put... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/09/10/traitors-must-be-punished-vladimir-putins-stark-warnings-russians-who-defect-west/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/09/10/traitors-mus... Skripal was swapped for 10 illegals (the illegals, from 2010). Bringing them back was a propaganda win, they sort of got away with it, and the west got Skripal back in return.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      > To prove that they can get anyone, anywhere? Is that really that hard to get? If they can get anyone, any time ... why pick someone irrelevant? Why not get someone where it is in their interests for them to die? That is a really bad motive. All they are doing is tipping their operational methods and compromising the identity of their assassins. Plus it costs money and is risky. Either the Russians are really stupid or there is some aspect of the story that isn't public. What that aspect is, who knows. But it is probably there.
      - mhh__ 6y ago
        Skripal was one of the west's crown jewels (that we know about at least), obvious target. This is about sending a message to potential future-skripals. And the brazenness of it fits with what I have said - We can get away with this anywhere, you are not safe. Spies have been killing people for millenia, and the KGB (now FSB) and GRU are particularly good at it. John Barron's book on the KGB from the 70s literally had a list of a few hundred known KGB officers at the back before the index, they all know each other to at least some degree (They'll suss you out the moment you are deployed to a foreign embassy). > What that aspect is, who knows. But it is probably there. Like what? Maybe they poisoned themselves with Novichok for a laugh, but it's unlikely. Remember that a lot of Russian money passes through the British ruling party and London so it's not really in their interest to ratfuck
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- somesortofsystm 6y ago
  There is no evidence, there is only conjecture.
oxymoran 6y ago
I don’t know why you would be surprised that you cannot randomly call people up to testify during the proceedings. You have to submit your witness lists months before a hearing.
- ifdefdebug 6y ago
  If you are talking about Goetz, he actually was a witness and testifying that morning. The point is that he was forbidden by the judge to testify about a specific event, in favor of Assange, but that's all in the article.
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    Exactly. The point is that the prosecutor has repeatedly brought up a specific event that Goetz witnessed. But when Goetz comes to testify, Goetz is not allowed to discuss that very same event. The prosecutor is allowed to repeatedly quote Luke Harding's account of what Assange supposedly said, but Goetz isn't allowed to give his opinion - which is apparently very different from that of Harding. Harding's personal hatred of Assange is well known, and he published this false (and as-of-yet un-retracted) story [1] about Assange supposedly meeting with Manafort in the Ecuadorian embassy, so it's entirely plausible that Goetz' "memory" of what Assange said is more accurate than Harding's. It's been pretty clear throughout this story that the judge is very unfavorable towards Assange. They're just going through the formalities, but we can all guess what the outcome will be - unless there's enough political pressure on the UK government to stop the extradition. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-hel...
nabla9 6y ago
Murray sows mistrust and conspiracy like thinking towards everything he sees as the man he is fighting against. He has uncritically trusted Kremlin sources because they have common enemy. For example Kremlin dismissed photos of Salisbury suspects as fake news, and Murray jumped right into it without critical thinking or distrust against Kremlin as source. NATO chemical weapons exercise taking place on Salisbury Plain seems like better explanation to him. For these and other reasons I can't trust his reporting to be factual. We should find other sources.
- mjw1007 6y ago
  Here's an example of his conspiracy-like thinking from last year: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/bad-faith-negotiation/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/bad-faith-ne... He claimed to have inside information from the Foreign Office, that the government was negotiating an agreement with the EU with the intention of breaking it later. I don't think anyone else reported this at the time. A little under a year later, it seems that what he reported was true.
  - matthewmacleod 6y ago
    A little under a year later, it seems that what he reported was true. No it doesn't; it merely seems that the outcome of the conspiracy he fabricated last year is similar to the possible outcome of something that might happen in the future. Broken clocks etc.
    - mjw1007 6y ago
      Murray often claims to be reporting something he was told by an insider at the Foreign Office. I'm not sure whether in general to believe him. In this case I'm convinced, from what we know now, that he was telling the truth: that the government was planning, at the time the backstop was negotiated, for how to break it, and that this was unusual enough for Foreign Office legal advisers to be distinctly unhappy about it. I don't think this demonstrates that every time he claims he's reporting insider information he's telling the truth. But it does weigh in the direction of treating him as a truth-teller. It's the nearest thing we can get in this sort of situation to gaining confidence by verifying a theory's prediction experimentally.
mlthoughts2018 6y ago
It’s amazing how much astroturfing happens in the comments of these Assange hearing threads. Within minutes every time, the same tired, false, laughable comments deriding Craig Murray and ignoring the written material show up. Nobody’s buying this criticism of Craig Murray. This appears by all accounts to be an accurate reflection of what was said, and it’s presented in a way where you can clearly form your own opinions and will not be unduly influenced by any of the writing expressing Murray’s own reaction or take. I wish the moderators would put a stop to it. Every single one of these comments should be flagged.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  It’s amazing how much astroturfing happens in the comments of these Assange hearing threads. Within minutes every time, the same tired, false, laughable comments deriding all criticism of Craig Murray and ignoring the written material show up. Both of our comments add nothing to the discussion
- pydry 6y ago
  Yeah, it's weird - discussion of the actual trial gets sidelined by ad hominems every single time. I'd probably listen to fox News if it were reporting something important everybody else refuses to discuss, but that's just me.
motohagiography 6y ago
The discussion of journalists not understanding or respecting the need to keep material encrypted is consistent with why I feel like I'm developing a lower degree of trust for people who lack a physical or technical skill, as without one, it is hard for them to have a sense of consequences for being careless or stupid in new domains. Ultimately one of the Guardian or NYT writers published Assange's insurance archive password in a book. Whether that was mendacious or stupid doesn't matter, Assange overestimated reporters and editors in their ability to apprehend risk. It becomes a moral issue when they don't hold themselves above that standard. They're fine for administrative tasks, but not people you want to take risks together with.
- bainsfather 6y ago
  I was very struck by this when watching Citizenfour (the documentary on Snowden leaks). The newspaper journalists had little understanding of good procedures (even "don't have a very short password") and thought Snowden hiding his keystrokes from the camera (and anything else) was funny, rather than good practice. And these were the best people Snowden could find. Hopefully, among journalists, there is now more awareness of how important this really is. As regards Harding/Leigh giving away the password in their book - I find it very hard to believe that this was an honest accident on their part. The defence that they and the Guardian newspaper gave is just not credible ~ 'oh, but we didn't realise'. And beyond that, if you were going to publish the password and somehow thought it was ok, you would at least consult someone who knew more on the topic that they claim that they did.
  - jules-jules 6y ago
    It's hard to remain impartial when the prosecutor's case mainly rests on WikiLeaks knowingly and wittingly publishing unredacted files, and one of the key witnesses who could refute this point is not allowed to talk about it. From the text: >James Lewis QC for the prosecution had been permitted gratuitously to read to two previous witnesses with zero connection to this claim, an extract from a book by Luke Harding and David Leigh in which Harding claims that at a dinner at El Moro Restaurant Julian Assange had stated he did not care if US informants were killed, because they were traitors who deserved what was coming to them. >This morning giving evidence was John Goetz, now Chief Investigations Editor of NDR (German public TV), then of Der Spiegel. Goetz was one of the four people at that dinner. He was ready and willing to testify that Julian said no such thing and Luke Harding is (not unusually) lying. Goetz was not permitted by Judge Baraitser to testify on this point, even though two witnesses who were not present had previously been asked to testify on it. >Baraitser’s legal rationale was this. It was not in his written evidence statement (submitted before Lewis had raised the question with other witnesses) so Goetz was only permitted to contradict Lewis’s deliberate introduction of a lie if Lewis asked him. Lewis refused to ask the one witness who was actually present what had happened, because Lewis knew the lie he is propagating would be exposed. [...] >Summers then asked about events leading to the publishing of the unredacted cables. Goetz said this was a complicated process. It started when Luke Harding and David Leigh published a book in February 2011 containing the password to the online cache of encrypted cables. This was discussed on various mirroring sites, and eventual publication of the full cache by Cryptome after Die Freitag became involved. Cryptome was at that time very well known and an important source for journalists. >Summers then asked about the breakdown of relationships between Wikileaks and the Guardian. It was at this point that Baraitser ruled that Summers was not allowed to ask about what happened at the dinner he attended at El Moro restaurant. Summers made a formal request, as Lewis had introduced the subject with other witnesses who unlike Goetz had not been there. Lewis objected, and Baraitser said no. Can someone explain to me how this is possible? I mean if witnesses with material knowledge about one of the key charges are barred from speaking about them during the trial, how are we to believe that this isn't anything other than a kangaroo court?

85 points by bainsfather 6y ago

Craig Murray is on record expressing skepticism that Russia was involved in the Salisbury poisoning. Judge his trustworthiness accordingly.

mhh__ 6y ago
Scepticism in this case is closer to "My mind is suspiciously open and my brain has fallen out onto the table in front of me", he questioned that they were poisoned at all let alone by the Russians. Murray also said that he was approached with DNC emails, which means that unless he was lying someone has sounded him out as a source (and we know where they came from) edit: mouthpiece not source.
rory_isAdonk 6y ago
Fair, sadly this is the best coverage we can get on one of the most important trials in recent history in regards to press freedom. The fact that there is neither wide spread protest/voicing of support in the media, or at least coverage is depressing beyond belief.
- foldr 6y ago
  This isn't a trial, it's an extradition hearing. It's not newsworthy primarily because nothing particularly surprising or interesting has happened or is likely to happen. We know what Assange is charged with and, to some extent, the nature of the evidence against him. All that remains is to wait for the decision. The trial, if there is one, is likely to get more coverage.
  - k1m 6y ago
    I guess the International Bar Association calling the hearing a "serious undermining of due process and the rule of law" and having Amnesty International denied access to monitor it isn't all that surprising or newsworthy.
    - foldr 6y ago
      Indeed it isn't, as there is a long history of such absurd hystronics in commentary on the Assange case. The thing about "monitoring" is particularly stupid. It's a public hearing and any organization can "monitor" it all they like. What AI can't do is appoint itself to a position above the British justice system.
      - DanBC 6y ago
        I agree with you that a lot of the commmentary around Assange is stupid, but I wanted to point out that... > It's a public hearing and any organization can "monitor" it all they like. ...because of covid the normally public courts are allowing far fewer people in to view the hearings, and the online substitute is difficult to access. As I understand it AI applied to be allowed to view the court session remotely, and were denied permission, and the reasons for that denial are unclear. The Transparency Project talks about difficulties reporters and bloggers face accessing the English family courts, and some of these are similar problems. www.transparencyproject.org.uk/
        foldr 6y ago
        That's a fair point, but I'd say two things in response. First, what you're saying just goes to show that any issues there have been are unlikely to be the result of anti-Assange conspiracies. Second, journalists from a variety of news sources - some of them sympathetic to Assange - have been able to view the hearing. It's not as if some major shenanigans could be pulled without anyone knowing. Nor do I think that the British justice system is so corrupt that it needs to be "monitored", like elections in a banana republic. By the way, AI's website claims that they will be remotely monitoring the hearings (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/uk-assange-extradition-hearing-will-be-a-key-test-for-uk-and-us-justice/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/uk-assange-ex...). Are you sure they can't see them? Edit: I found the following on Twitter. The explanation given makes sense to me. https://twitter.com/StefSimanowitz/status/1303288781714468865?s=20 https://twitter.com/StefSimanowitz/status/130328878171446886... (Twitter sucks. Scroll down in that thread to see the screenshot of the explanation.) See also this HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24491776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24491776
  - HugeAcumen 6y ago
    Before people engage with this gent I would point them to his recent conversations here. Many people, at length, have tried to engage and explain to him the import of these proceedings in good faith. He was provided reputable links many times, which he deemed "conspiracy theories", refusing to engage in the facts within. A significant portion of his recent history, in fact, is people begging him to read the facts; his replies come in the form "you Assange conspiracists ..." I don't want to break HN rules on calling people out, but the above are straight facts that people really ought to be aware of before trying with this guy again. It astounds me that people are putting Chomsky, Hersh, Pilger, Ellsberg, etc, who have all made dire warnings about this extraordinary case, in the box of "Assange conspiracists" - and getting away with it.
    - foldr 6y ago
      You're mischaracterizing my recent post history and attacking me personally rather than what I'm saying. I'm not a mod, but yes, I'd say that is against the guidelines.
      - dang 6y ago
        I've given the users attacking you a thorough scolding for breaking the site guidelines, but you've also been breaking the site guidelines by using this site for flamewar, by posting excessively on this issue and dropping swipes like "you Assange conspiracists" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24408007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24408007). It's not surprising that you provoked this sort of reaction from others on the opposite side of the issue from you. That's not cool, and if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to using this site as intended, we'd appreciate it. To use HN as intended means primarily posting thoughtful, substantive comments on topics of intellectual curiosity. Internet polemics are tedious and nasty, and that gets truer as the topic gets hotter and more sensational. Assange threads, for example, already years ago became repetitive to the point of utter pointlessness. Nobody's convincing anybody—people are just beating each other with the same talking points over and over. If that's the game you want to play on the internet, please do it somewhere else.
jjgreen 6y ago
Scepticism is healthy, particularly when dealing with statements so vehemently asserted by the state. Do you have some examples of Murray's reporting on the Assange case being untrustworthy?
the-dude 6y ago
Skepticism. Yes please.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  The line between Sceptic and useful idiot is subtle sometimes. I read some of Murray's doubts - some of them hold weight (as in they are noteworthy), sure, and it's almost certain that SIS cleaned up the story (They aren't the police - the only material that gets published is published because it's useful) but Murray has _zero_ insider knowledge here. If you are questioning that it was a poisoning at all you better have something to stand on. He has consistently been pointing in the opposite direction to the western line for years, and never correct in any case I can see. He claimed he had spoken to the "person" who leaked the DNC emails - if he actually thinks that he is either unbelievably naive or acting in bad faith. "The US and Saudi Arabia have every reason to instigate a split between Germany and Russia at this time. Navalny is certainly a victim of international politics. That he is a victim of Putin I tend to doubt." Make your own mind up. edit: -2 but no counterargument, wheres the fun in that
  - pydry 6y ago
    Navalny had a LOT of enemies in Russia, not just putin. It's hardly an outrageous conspiracy theory to suggest that somebody more LDPR-aligned than Putin-aligned poisoned him, especially since they're the ones who made Litvinenko's killer an MP. It's interesting the ways in which our own domestic propaganda can inform our worldviews.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      With Novichok? Why bother with a highly specialized nerve agent when you could use a gun? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/17/alexei-navalny-novichok-bottle-of-water-hotel-room https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/17/alexei-navalny...
      - pydry 6y ago
        Yes. You're skeptical that a far right Russian political network might have strong military connections who would have access? I would also be skeptical of this idea if I truly believed that Putin had the extreme iron grip over military/FSB that he tries to portray. I believe it's quite a bit more chaotic there than he'd want you to believe though. I'm sure their opsec is not as good as it is in the US. After the SU fell they even auctioned off arms. As to why not a gun - 1) it's quiet and surreptitious. 2) I reckon it might also be a message TO putin 3) I'm pretty sure they would want putin to be seen as responsible for the murder.
dontcarethrow2 6y ago
Sounds like a trustworthy guy, not afraid to go against establishment, something we need in our journalists, thanks for pointing it out.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  He was completely wrong in his spat with Bellingcat https://twitter.com/eliothiggins/status/1047597999105462272?lang=en https://twitter.com/eliothiggins/status/1047597999105462272?... https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/09/06/god-level-trolling-russian-ministry-foreign-affairs-spokesperson-maria-zakharova-promotes-debunked-internet-conspiracy-theories-skripal-nerve-agent-attack/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/09/06/god... He was also fired from the foreign office in 2004, make of what I have provided as you will.
  - dontcarethrow2 6y ago
    To err is human, to repeatedly try to discredit the only source we get from this trample on 'freedom of speech' is.. fishy. Classic smear tactics, so passive, so cool. Hats off to you gents, fiction isn't this sweet.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      Trust but Verify
    - dash2 6y ago
      There are plenty of people reporting on the Assange trial.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Just because someone is counter culture doesn't make him right. The only reason this post is even on HN has more to do with confirmation bias than any truth.
Niksko 6y ago
I'd love to have other sources to read. Unfortunately it seems like there aren't any, because nobody is being allowed to sit in the gallery on this pretty important case. Huge red flag right there.
- rory_isAdonk 6y ago
  As would I, why there isn't a rolling coverage section in the Guardian is beyond me? Obviously the case doesnt make them look good, but it's incredibly important.
- dash2 6y ago
  See the discussion about Covid above. This comment is misleading in that context.
roenxi 6y ago
The Salisbury poisoning was bizarre. The Russians had arrested Sergei, then spy-swapped him in 2010. So the Russians have to have figured out a reason, after a decade, that suddenly this man had to die in a grizzly and obvious assassination. Despite the fact they already had him under arrest and decided he wasn't all that important to them. It is very hard to imagine what that reason would be. And on the converse, anglosphere intelligence services have a history of lying. It is reasonable to question the Salisbury poisoning. It is hard to see what was in it for Russia. There wasn't an outcome here that is good for them, so it is unclear why they would have done it.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  To prove that they can get anyone, anywhere? Is that really that hard to get? They aren't exactly quiet about what might happen to someone who doesn't play ball. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-traitors-kick-bucket-sergei-skripal-latest-video-30-pieces-silver-a8243206.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-put... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/09/10/traitors-must-be-punished-vladimir-putins-stark-warnings-russians-who-defect-west/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/09/10/traitors-mus... Skripal was swapped for 10 illegals (the illegals, from 2010). Bringing them back was a propaganda win, they sort of got away with it, and the west got Skripal back in return.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    > To prove that they can get anyone, anywhere? Is that really that hard to get? If they can get anyone, any time ... why pick someone irrelevant? Why not get someone where it is in their interests for them to die? That is a really bad motive. All they are doing is tipping their operational methods and compromising the identity of their assassins. Plus it costs money and is risky. Either the Russians are really stupid or there is some aspect of the story that isn't public. What that aspect is, who knows. But it is probably there.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      Skripal was one of the west's crown jewels (that we know about at least), obvious target. This is about sending a message to potential future-skripals. And the brazenness of it fits with what I have said - We can get away with this anywhere, you are not safe. Spies have been killing people for millenia, and the KGB (now FSB) and GRU are particularly good at it. John Barron's book on the KGB from the 70s literally had a list of a few hundred known KGB officers at the back before the index, they all know each other to at least some degree (They'll suss you out the moment you are deployed to a foreign embassy). > What that aspect is, who knows. But it is probably there. Like what? Maybe they poisoned themselves with Novichok for a laugh, but it's unlikely. Remember that a lot of Russian money passes through the British ruling party and London so it's not really in their interest to ratfuck
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
somesortofsystm 6y ago
There is no evidence, there is only conjecture.

oxymoran 6y ago

I don’t know why you would be surprised that you cannot randomly call people up to testify during the proceedings. You have to submit your witness lists months before a hearing.

ifdefdebug 6y ago
If you are talking about Goetz, he actually was a witness and testifying that morning. The point is that he was forbidden by the judge to testify about a specific event, in favor of Assange, but that's all in the article.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  Exactly. The point is that the prosecutor has repeatedly brought up a specific event that Goetz witnessed. But when Goetz comes to testify, Goetz is not allowed to discuss that very same event. The prosecutor is allowed to repeatedly quote Luke Harding's account of what Assange supposedly said, but Goetz isn't allowed to give his opinion - which is apparently very different from that of Harding. Harding's personal hatred of Assange is well known, and he published this false (and as-of-yet un-retracted) story [1] about Assange supposedly meeting with Manafort in the Ecuadorian embassy, so it's entirely plausible that Goetz' "memory" of what Assange said is more accurate than Harding's. It's been pretty clear throughout this story that the judge is very unfavorable towards Assange. They're just going through the formalities, but we can all guess what the outcome will be - unless there's enough political pressure on the UK government to stop the extradition. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-hel...

nabla9 6y ago

Murray sows mistrust and conspiracy like thinking towards everything he sees as the man he is fighting against. He has uncritically trusted Kremlin sources because they have common enemy. For example Kremlin dismissed photos of Salisbury suspects as fake news, and Murray jumped right into it without critical thinking or distrust against Kremlin as source. NATO chemical weapons exercise taking place on Salisbury Plain seems like better explanation to him. For these and other reasons I can't trust his reporting to be factual. We should find other sources.

mjw1007 6y ago
Here's an example of his conspiracy-like thinking from last year: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/bad-faith-negotiation/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/bad-faith-ne... He claimed to have inside information from the Foreign Office, that the government was negotiating an agreement with the EU with the intention of breaking it later. I don't think anyone else reported this at the time. A little under a year later, it seems that what he reported was true.
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  A little under a year later, it seems that what he reported was true. No it doesn't; it merely seems that the outcome of the conspiracy he fabricated last year is similar to the possible outcome of something that might happen in the future. Broken clocks etc.
  - mjw1007 6y ago
    Murray often claims to be reporting something he was told by an insider at the Foreign Office. I'm not sure whether in general to believe him. In this case I'm convinced, from what we know now, that he was telling the truth: that the government was planning, at the time the backstop was negotiated, for how to break it, and that this was unusual enough for Foreign Office legal advisers to be distinctly unhappy about it. I don't think this demonstrates that every time he claims he's reporting insider information he's telling the truth. But it does weigh in the direction of treating him as a truth-teller. It's the nearest thing we can get in this sort of situation to gaining confidence by verifying a theory's prediction experimentally.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago

It’s amazing how much astroturfing happens in the comments of these Assange hearing threads. Within minutes every time, the same tired, false, laughable comments deriding Craig Murray and ignoring the written material show up. Nobody’s buying this criticism of Craig Murray. This appears by all accounts to be an accurate reflection of what was said, and it’s presented in a way where you can clearly form your own opinions and will not be unduly influenced by any of the writing expressing Murray’s own reaction or take. I wish the moderators would put a stop to it. Every single one of these comments should be flagged.

mhh__ 6y ago
It’s amazing how much astroturfing happens in the comments of these Assange hearing threads. Within minutes every time, the same tired, false, laughable comments deriding all criticism of Craig Murray and ignoring the written material show up. Both of our comments add nothing to the discussion
pydry 6y ago
Yeah, it's weird - discussion of the actual trial gets sidelined by ad hominems every single time. I'd probably listen to fox News if it were reporting something important everybody else refuses to discuss, but that's just me.

motohagiography 6y ago

The discussion of journalists not understanding or respecting the need to keep material encrypted is consistent with why I feel like I'm developing a lower degree of trust for people who lack a physical or technical skill, as without one, it is hard for them to have a sense of consequences for being careless or stupid in new domains. Ultimately one of the Guardian or NYT writers published Assange's insurance archive password in a book. Whether that was mendacious or stupid doesn't matter, Assange overestimated reporters and editors in their ability to apprehend risk. It becomes a moral issue when they don't hold themselves above that standard. They're fine for administrative tasks, but not people you want to take risks together with.

bainsfather 6y ago
I was very struck by this when watching Citizenfour (the documentary on Snowden leaks). The newspaper journalists had little understanding of good procedures (even "don't have a very short password") and thought Snowden hiding his keystrokes from the camera (and anything else) was funny, rather than good practice. And these were the best people Snowden could find. Hopefully, among journalists, there is now more awareness of how important this really is. As regards Harding/Leigh giving away the password in their book - I find it very hard to believe that this was an honest accident on their part. The defence that they and the Guardian newspaper gave is just not credible ~ 'oh, but we didn't realise'. And beyond that, if you were going to publish the password and somehow thought it was ok, you would at least consult someone who knew more on the topic that they claim that they did.
- jules-jules 6y ago
  It's hard to remain impartial when the prosecutor's case mainly rests on WikiLeaks knowingly and wittingly publishing unredacted files, and one of the key witnesses who could refute this point is not allowed to talk about it. From the text: >James Lewis QC for the prosecution had been permitted gratuitously to read to two previous witnesses with zero connection to this claim, an extract from a book by Luke Harding and David Leigh in which Harding claims that at a dinner at El Moro Restaurant Julian Assange had stated he did not care if US informants were killed, because they were traitors who deserved what was coming to them. >This morning giving evidence was John Goetz, now Chief Investigations Editor of NDR (German public TV), then of Der Spiegel. Goetz was one of the four people at that dinner. He was ready and willing to testify that Julian said no such thing and Luke Harding is (not unusually) lying. Goetz was not permitted by Judge Baraitser to testify on this point, even though two witnesses who were not present had previously been asked to testify on it. >Baraitser’s legal rationale was this. It was not in his written evidence statement (submitted before Lewis had raised the question with other witnesses) so Goetz was only permitted to contradict Lewis’s deliberate introduction of a lie if Lewis asked him. Lewis refused to ask the one witness who was actually present what had happened, because Lewis knew the lie he is propagating would be exposed. [...] >Summers then asked about events leading to the publishing of the unredacted cables. Goetz said this was a complicated process. It started when Luke Harding and David Leigh published a book in February 2011 containing the password to the online cache of encrypted cables. This was discussed on various mirroring sites, and eventual publication of the full cache by Cryptome after Die Freitag became involved. Cryptome was at that time very well known and an important source for journalists. >Summers then asked about the breakdown of relationships between Wikileaks and the Guardian. It was at this point that Baraitser ruled that Summers was not allowed to ask about what happened at the dinner he attended at El Moro restaurant. Summers made a formal request, as Lewis had introduced the subject with other witnesses who unlike Goetz had not been there. Lewis objected, and Baraitser said no. Can someone explain to me how this is possible? I mean if witnesses with material knowledge about one of the key charges are barred from speaking about them during the trial, how are we to believe that this isn't anything other than a kangaroo court?