3 ms·
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 specif
by 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 agoExactly. 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...