• Under fire from a Western-backed Ukraine: The people of the DPR share their stories
• Pompeo visits Belarus to discuss oil as Minsk's ties with Moscow fray
• Putin's epic annual conference fielding questions from the world's media

• Sanders: $3.8B annual US military aid to Israel should be leveraged to end horrific treatment of Palestinians
• Sanders: 'Absolutely use foreign aid as leverage' against Israel's government
• Israel 'up in arms' after Sanders says he's open to cutting aid to Israel
• Sanders says US complicit in Israel's illegal West Bank occupation
• About time! In recent debate, Sanders slams Clinton on Israel
• Bernie Sanders' feeble position on Israel is a serious progressive problem - and the reason I won't vote for him
• Bernie Sanders: A radical on economic policy, but a pussycat for Israel

• A key witness told Mueller team that Russia collusion evidence found in Ukraine was a fabrication
• Ex-FBI official Mark Tolson gets mere 7 days jail for hacking emails of anti-Mueller activist
• Good news for Rick Gates: Only 45 days jail time for his 'extraordinary' Mueller cooperation
• Powell says Flynn expects to ask judge to dismiss his case due to egrigious Brady violations by Mueller team
• Federal judge orders Justice Department to turn over redacted portions of Mueller grand jury material
• ICIG Michael Atkinson, top Mueller hoax operative, turned in the partisan CIA whistleblower complaint

• Artificial Intelligence will make our forever wars truly forever
• Henry Kissinger gives ominous warning on dangers of artificial intelligence, pretends to have a conscience

'Lies, lies and more lies': Lawyer slams day 2 of Julian Assange's US extradition hearing

As the hearing began, James Lewis QC, representing the US government, complained that the defense was receiving transcripts of court proceedings while the prosecution was not. Edward Fitzgerald QC, representing Assange, said the transcripts were privately made and they would share a copy if the prosecution paid half the costs.

At one point, journalist Kevin Gosztola, who was present in the press annex, tweeted to complain that Lewis "won't speak into the microphone" and that reporters "cannot hear a word."

Next, attention turned to WikiLeaks' 'most wanted' list of leaks it had asked for people to submit to the site. Summers said the list did not mention anything about US diplomatic cables and dismissed the "fantasy" claim that Manning uploaded the cables after seeing a request for them on that list.

To counteract the claim that Assange had recklessly released the leaks and put lives at risk (one of the prosecution's key arguments), the defense noted that Assange had partnered with major media organization to read and redact the cables, where necessary, before releasing them.

Shortly before midday, the public gallery was closed off to journalists, causing some confusion among journalists. The court rose for a short time to deal with the issue, before resuming again.

The defense continued to argue that documents Manning leaked on Iraq were "non-sensitive," would be of no use to an enemy and included no names. What's more, the defense claimed that Manning didn't require a username and passport to access the database where she obtained the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, making the US government's hacking charge false.

"The other side must have something like 100 contact hours each day," Assange said upon the conclusion of the adjournment, before adding that his legal team is being spied on.

There is already enough spying on my lawyers as it is. There are a number of unnamed embassy officials here. There are two microphones in here. What's the point of asking if I can concentrate if I can't participate?

"I am as much a participant in these proceedings as I am at Wimbledon," Assange wistfully joked while alleging that there was a microphone in the glass defendants dock.

"It is your call Madam," the prosecutors said. Defense counsel Edward Fitzgerald argued that Assange is "no threat to anyone," adding: "He is a gentle man of an intellectual nature. There's no reason for him not to sit with us."

Presiding judge Vanessa Baraitser said during the close of Tuesday's proceedings that, although Article 4.1 of the US/UK Extradition Treaty cited does forbid political extraditions, this does not, in fact, appear in the UK Extradition Act - the only legal document which has force in court.

Picking up that point on Wednesday, Fitzgerald argued that international human rights law provides jurisdiction for an abuse of process argument under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits arbitrary detention.

Fitzgerald cited numerous precedents tying international law and the ECHR with English law in determining the legality of detention, essentially arguing that Assange's detention is illegal under all three.

The defense also argued that many of the prosecution's arguments in favor of extradition were based on international law and precedent, not English. Any subsequent acts of parliament are irrelevant when the specific defense which precludes extradition for so-called 'political offenses' is contained within the treaty signed between the US and the UK.