On 10 April 2019, WikiLeaks said it had uncovered an extensive surveillance operation against Assange from within the embassy. WikiLeaks said that "material including video, audio, copies of private legal documents and a medical report" had surfaced in Spain and that unnamed individuals in Madrid had made an extortion attempt.
On 26 September 2019, the Spanish newspaper El País reported that the Spanish defence and security company Undercover Global S.L. (UC Global) had spied on Assange for the CIA during his time in the embassy. UC Global had been contracted to protect the embassy during this time. According to the report UC Global's owner David Morales had provided the CIA with audio and video of meetings Assange held with his lawyers and colleagues. Morales also arranged for the US to have direct access to the stream from video cameras installed in the embassy at the beginning of December 2017. The evidence was part of a secret investigation by Spain's High Court, the Audiencia Nacional, into Morales and his relationship with US intelligence. The investigation was precipitated by a complaint by Assange that accused UC Global of violating his privacy and client-attorney privileges as well as committing misappropriation, bribery and money laundering.[340] Morales was arrested in September on charges involving violations of privacy and client-attorney privileges, as well as misappropriation, bribery, money laundering and criminal possession of weapons. He was released on bail
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange
So may "we the people" see these recorded conversations that the powers that be harvested under clandestine conditions through international channels? If Assange is guilty of something, then perhaps "we the people" ought to be shown those videos also so that we can determine for ourselves? If Assange is extradited will his trial be videotaped and recorded for all the world to witness? Or will the trial be done behind closed doors so that "the impartiality of the jury isn't jeopardized"?
In the US, photography and broadcasting is permitted in some courtrooms but not in others. Some[who?] argue that use of media during courtroom proceedings presents a mockery of the judicial system,[why?] though the issue has been contested at length.
..[snip]...
Daniel M. Kolkey argues that televising trials can distort the truth-seeking process of a criminal trial and chill witnesses' willingness to cooperate; that televising trials interferes with the privacy of victims, witnesses and defendants; that the decision whether to televise trials does not lend itself to a case-by-case determination; and that televising trials can transform them into a form of entertainment which can undermine the dignity of, and respect for, our judicial institutions. Bryan Goebel counter-argues that there is no evidence to support claims that cameras have any greater psychological effect than a packed courtroom of strangers or that the cameras undermine truthful testimony.[31] It has been pointed out that inasmuch as no trial can be reproduced in laboratory conditions, scientific experimentation is not possible, and we thus have no empirical data on the effect of television on a criminal trial.[32][33]
It has been argued that because the majority of Americans have had no personal experience with the legal system, and because the majority of Americans get their information about the world solely from television, the portrayal of justice on television is extremely important to the continued viability of the legal system and to the individual's understanding of that system.[34] Senator Charles Schumer argued, "Courts are an important part of our government, and the more our government institutions are shown to the public, the more dignified they become, and the more the public comes to understand them. Allowing cameras into our courtrooms will help demystify them and let the public evaluate how well the system works."[8] Justice Otto Moore of the Colorado Supreme Court opined in 1956, "Do we hear complaints that the employment of these modern devices of thought transmission in the pulpits of our great churches destroys the dignity of the service; that they degrade the pulpit or create misconceptions in the mind of the public? The answers are obvious. That which is carried out with dignity will not become undignified because more people may be permitted to see and hear."[35] William O. Douglas argued that televising trials should not be allowed because the press can use it to pressure judges to decide a case a certain way, particularly in jurisdictions where judges are elected.[36]
In reference to the argument that cameras make witnesses nervous, former jurist Louis Gohmert stated, "I think nervousness is a good thing in a witness. It makes potential inaccuracies come to the light and easier to observe." He responded to the argument that cameras may make witnesses more reluctant to testify by saying, "There is a thing called a subpoena," and noting that he "found that if people are not willing to come to court and they are reluctant to testify, officers with handcuffs and guns are very helpful."[37]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtroom ... oadcasting
Thoughts? Should we trust government "officials" anymore? In what ways can "we the people" be ensured that our "officials" are behaving themselves behind closed doors while they perform their duties on OUR behalf?
