Kristinn Hrafnsson @khrafnsson editor in chief of @wikileaks arrives at the Old Bailey for Day 3 of the #Assange extradition hearing.

I will be posting live updates below.

First witness to testify today is Prof. Paul Rogers, expert in terrorism, national security & defense.

Rogers describes #Assange as having very strong opinions that go against the US, therefore making his trial highly political

Rogers states that documents provided by #Assange and
@wikileaks destroyed the official narrative; this myth that the US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were successful. Afghan war diaries and Iraq war logs were instrumental in exposing this truth.

Rogers reasserts the importance of these leaks. Thanks to @wikileaks and revelations by Manning @xychelsea we knof of 15,000 extra casualties in Iraq alone. WikiLeaks archives are of high value and widely used by scholars.

Lewis asks Rogers if he thinks having strong political views is inherent to being a journalist. Rogers says no. Lewis then asks whether publishers/editors also must hold strong political views? Rogers says, no not necessarily.

Lewis keeps asking intricate Rogers intricate questions, requiring in-depth answers then getting pissy when he actually gives them because he wants short yes and no responses. Reminiscent of his style yesterday when questioning Feldstein.

Lewis getting pissy again because Rogers is struggling to find a document he's referencing. (Prosecution lumped him with an archive hundreds of pages long at the last minute).

Lewis presses Rogers about a statement #Assange once made: "journalists are war criminals". (looking at you @NicolleDWallace).

The above quote refers to the role of propaganda being used to starts wars, like in the case of Iraq. Lewis inquires about Assange including WWII in that list.

More issues now with Rogers and the giant stack of files they dumped on him at the last minute.

Lewis once again focuses his attack on the expert witness's credibility as he did with Feldstein yesterday and now accuses Prof. Rogers (expert in terrorism, nat sec) of being biased for not including AUSA Kromberg's assertion that trial was not political.

Rogers reaffirms he still sees the trial as political because the evidence has not changed, (only the administration has).

Lewis brings up Northern Ireland, regarding cases against soldiers which were re-opened by UK gov. much later. Lewis asks if those were also politically motivated? Rogers disarms him and says yes, in so many words.

Lewis says trial is not of a political nature because #Assange is only being charged over unredacted docs/endangering lives – not exposing war crimes (i.e. Collateral Murder video). Rogers says context has to be taken into account and according to his expertise it is political.

Rogers seems to be getting under Lewis' skin. Lewis asks for 10 min break.

Court is back. Rogers says once again that trial is definitely political due to major political shift from Trump admin. If case had legal merit Obama admin would've pursued it.

Lewis argues that the Grand Jury was still impaneled under Obama, and moreover that it was not possible to even arrest Assange because he was hiding in the embassy. So therefore Obama admin did have legal grounds to pursue #Assange, and this trial is not a result of just Trump

Lewis and Rogers having it out over and over about whether previous admin was *able* to prosecute Assange at all, in order to establish the trial's political nature (or lack thereof)

Twitter keeps breaking my thread.

Defense are now questioning Rogers. They ask him to elaborate on #Assange's comment, referred to earlier, that wars are started by lies. Rogers says that Julian was referring to Germans alleging Poland was a threat, WMDs in Iraq, etc.

Rogers asserts that another reason the trial is political is because several members of Trump admin have openly called for #Assange to be prosecuted e.g. Sessions, Pompeo – in stark contrast to Obama admin.

WaPo article from 2013, which Fitzgerald was referring to where Justice Dpt say they've practically abandoned prosecution of #Assange

Rogers (for the billionth time, and rightly so): the trial is political because the decision to bring charges against Assange wasn't based purely on any legality but a change in leadership and motives of people at the top

Rogers asserts that Obama admin's decisions to commute Chelsea Manning's sentence @xychelsea might have played a role in decision to prosecute #Assange because a commuted sentence is not something that can be typically reversed by a president.

Rogers' testimony comes to an end, court adjourned, resumes in an hour at 2pm local time.

Prosecution clearly had way more time to cross-examine him. Completely unfair, and Lewis kept going after his credibility, flat-out accusing Rogers of bias & repeatedly cutting him off.