Politico reported Saturday morning that President Donald Trump's lawyers would open their arguments in the Senate impeachment trial by focusing on former Vice President Joe Biden. In fact, they barely mentioned Biden at all.

White House lawyers instead focused their two-hour presentation on the facts that, they argued, House Democrats had deliberately left out of their three-day presentation to the Senate because the facts would "collapse" their case. The only person they attacked was lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), arguing that his track record of misleading the public meant the Senate could not trust his inferences about the evidence.

A few minutes before the opening of proceedings in the Senate at 10:00 a.m. ET, Politico sent an email alert: "BREAKING NEWS: Trump's legal team to begin opening arguments with assault on Biden." The email claimed that White House counsel were going to open their defense of Trump with an "unbridled" attack on Biden.

But in the end, there was simply a passing reference to the vice president that did not mention him by name.

Politico later reported: "Trump's legal team launches attack on Dem case — and Schiff." It admitted:

Unmentioned in the first hours of the trial was Joe Biden, who Trump asked Zelensky to investigate during their July 25 call, a request that Democrats said amounted to a violation of Trump's oath of office — using his power to obtain a personal, political benefit. Biden is a front-runner to challenge Trump in the 2020 election.

It added: "But [White House lawyer Jay] Sekulow has foreshadowed that Biden will be a feature of the defense."

The opening arguments of the White House will resume Monday in the Senate at 1:00 p.m. ET.

Part II: [T]here is another dimension - that of alleged prejudice by UK justices and other legal irregularities. This builds another strong case to challenge extradition.

Conflicting interests

The Guide to Judicial Conduct in England and Wales states:

The judiciary must be seen to be independent of the legislative and executive arms of government both as individuals and as a whole. However, in November 2019 Daily Maverick journalists Mark Curtis and Matt Kennard revealed that:

at the same time Lady [Emma] Arbuthnot was presiding over Assange's legal case, the judge's husband [Lord James Arbuthnot], was holding talks with senior officials in Turkey, exposed by WikiLeaks, some of whom have an interest in punishing Assange and the WikiLeaks organisation.

Before becoming a peer, Lord Arbuthnot was a member of the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee from 2001-06. He is also currently an officer of the all party parliamentary group on cybersecurity which is administered by the Information Security Group (ISG) at Royal Holloway, University of London. ... He is also a former member of the national security strategy joint committee and the armed forces bill committee.

Vitruvian Partners, the employer of Arbuthnot's son Alexander, has a multimillion-pound investment in cybersecurity firm Darktrace, whose officials originate from the National Security Agency (NSA) and the CIA.

More conflicting interests

The Canary revealed how Lord Arbuthnot is a member of the advisory board of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI); is chair of the advisory board of the UK division of defence and security systems manufacturer Thales; and that when a Tory MP he was chair of the Defence Select Committee.

Restricted access

At a hearing in December 2019, Gareth Peirce, Assange's UK lawyer, told the court that access to her client at Belmarsh prison had been restricted. Consequently, Assange had not been provided with access to evidence in preparation for the main extradition hearing. Regarding that evidence, Peirce explained to the court:

"Without Mr Assange's knowledge, some of it is recently acquired evidence, some of it is subject to months of investigation not always in this country, of which he is unaware because of the blockage in visits." Indeed, such evidence would include the surveillance footage of Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy.

For in the latest twist, witnesses during the trial of UC Global head David Morales stated how that footage and other material was regularly provided to the CIA by him via a security operator working for billionaire gambling magnate Sheldon Adelson, who just happens to be one of Donald Trump's "biggest benefactors".

At another hearing, on 15 January, presiding magistrate District Judge Vanessa Baraitsar made it clear to Peirce that she and her legal team will only have access to Assange for one hour, during which evidence can be examined. Consequently, Peirce has raised the possibility of a judicial review.

Implications for journalists

The outcome of Assange's trial is also significant for journalists around the world. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges argues that if the extradition proceeds:

"it will create a legal precedent that will terminate the ability of the press, which Trump repeatedly has called "the enemy of the people," to hold power accountable. The crimes of war and finance, the persecution of dissidents, minorities and immigrants, the pillaging by corporations of the nation and the ecosystem and the ruthless impoverishment of working men and women to swell the bank accounts of the rich and consolidate the global oligarchs' total grip on power will not only expand, but will no longer be part of public debate. First Assange. Then us."

And Shadowproof journalist Kevin Gozstola points out that the charges raised against Assange have wider implications:

Assange holds citizenship in Australia and was also granted citizenship by Ecuador a little over one year ago. Invoking secrecy regulations in the US as part of an indictment against someone who is not an American citizen carries implications for world press freedom.

Let legal battle commence

Altogether, the six legal arguments, as well as claims of impartiality by UK justices and restriction of access to Assange by his lawyers, could see the extradition request denied.

At a hearing on 23 January, it was agreed that the main extradition hearing will start on 24 February at Woolwich Crown Court and will last about one week, with further proceedings expected on 18 May to last another three weeks. A number of parliamentarians from across Europe have indicated they hope to attend the court hearings.

Some of the responses: