 Bom dia, eu queria te dizer a você, a todos os líderes do mundo, ao Trump, ao primeiro ministro inglês, ao primeiro ministro francês e ao mundo inteiro seguinte, o Assange deveria nesse momento estar sendo definido como um herói da democracia, como um herói da liberdade, como um herói da comunicação, como um cara que prestou bem a humanidade, sabe, denunciando os crimes de guerra cometidos pelos Estados Unidos da América do Norte. Eu até disse ontem que ele deveria estar sendo votado para ganhar o Prêmio Novo e da Paz, porque esses democratas do planeta Terra envolvendo todos os jornalistas, todos os votos da devogada, todos sindicalistas, todo político não tiverem coragem de se manifestar em defesa do Assange, para que ele não seja extraditado significa que tem muitos democratas mentirosos, significa que a liberdade de imprensa tão cantada e veste exprosa pelos donos dos grandes jornais é mentira, porque o Assange não merece ser punido, o Assange merece ser reconhecido como um homem que prestou enorme serviço à humanidade, denunciando o genofilho das guerras, o genofilho da mentira, a manipulação às vezes dos Estados Unidos do maior territo, o Assange não pode ser extraditado se as pessoas acreditarem em democracia, sabe porque os jornais que deram a notícia não foram processados, não foi preso nenhum dólar de jornal, como é que pode o jornalista ser preso e condenado para prestar informação que todos os jornais defendem? Cadê a associação dos jornalistas norte-americanos? Cadê a associação dos jornalistas ingleses? Cadê a associação dos jornalistas franceses? Cadê as ordens dos advogados? Cadê o conselho de direitos humanos da ONU? É preciso todo mundo sair do armário e defender o Assange se a gente quiser continuar acreditando e defendendo liberdade de imprensa, liberdade de informação, liberdade de comunicação? É isso, portanto o Assange precisa ser defendido por todos nós que amamos a democracia, que amamos a liberdade de imprensa, que amamos a liberdade sindical, que amamos a liberdade de organização. Liberdade não tem adjetivos. Ou é liberdade ou não é liberdade? E o Assange prestou serviços à humanidade. Ele não prestou de serviço. Aquela informação de um helicópter americano matando pessoas civis no Iraque. Inclusive dois jornalistas da Reuters. Aqui no Assange deveria estar sendo preneado por ter feito aquilo. Então eu espero, espero que o povo inglês, que o povo francês, que o povo americano não permita mais essa atrocidade. Bem-vindo a essa edição especial de CN Live. Políticas líderes falam de Assange. Eu sou Joeloria, editor-in-chief de Consority News. Hoje nós estamos trazendo-nos notícias que mais de 100 políticos de 27 países, incluindo 13 currentes e líderes formais do Estado, apelam ao governo do governo do Brasil a presidência da extradição de Assange e garantiram sua liberdade imediatamente. Como Assange lutou contra a extradição da extradição de Assange em Londres, os políticos juntaram 189 independentes policiais internacionais, jurídicas, acadêmicas legais e as associações de policiais, em torno que eles foram feitos para o governo britânico, anunciando a iligidade da extradição. Políticas em torno que chamam de liberar a Assange, incluindo Jeremy Corbett, formado líder laboral do União Unido, formado Primeiro-Ministro de Espanha, Luís Zapatero, several members of the European Parliament, former presidents of Brazil, Lula da Silva, who you just heard from, and Dilma Rousseff, a former deputy prime minister of Australia and Australian parliamentarians from the cross-party parliamentary group to free Assange. Joining us today is Greg Barnes, a barrister and advisor to the Australian Assange campaign, Polona Flora Jancic, originator of the Lawyer's Letter to the UK government, Tony Kevin, former Australian ambassador to Poland and Cambodia, and Arthur Chesterfield Evans, a former member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales Parliament, and a signatory to the politicians endorsement. First we'll hear from Greg Barnes who'll give us an overview of Julian Assange's case to date, and then Polona will update us on the Lawyer's Letter and the political endorsements. Greg. Thanks, Joe, everyone, to be with you again. The case is, of course, two weeks in now, the extradition proceedings, and I think it's fair to say that the evidence that's been presented by the London legal team has been, firstly, very well presented and secondly, very powerful, particularly good in the sense of putting to bed the myths about the Assange case, two of which have been peddled by governments and used, particularly in Australia, for example, as an excuse not to do anything to assist Assange, that is, that he put lives at risk as a result of the material that was published in 2010, 2011, which, of course, is not the case. But the second point, of course, the idea that Assange was doing any more than simply publishing material in the same way that any other journalist might publish material, publisher might publish material. In other words, acting very much in accordance with the way in which that line of journalism works and that line of publishing works. The difficulty with the case, of course, is that the threshold for extradition is quite low and one of the concerns we have as lawyer, certainly I have as a lawyer and I signed the, certainly the lawyers for Assange letter, but one of the grave concerns, of course, is the lack of procedural fairness in this case. What you're seeing is witnesses, for example, Daniel Ellsberg last week being cross-examined by Council for the United States, sent over 300 pages of material only the day before to examine prior to cross-examination. Now, I can tell you, in Australia, that would not be tolerated in any case. I've not seen a case where that's occurred. I doubt whether it's tolerated in the United Kingdom. It's not best practised anyway in any stretch of the imagination and normally it would lead to an adjournment. The second issue, of course, is the right that keeps shifting. That is, that the way in which the indictment is framed has shifted and the case keeps shifting, the way in which it's put. However, you'd have to say, if you were in a court where you had and felt that you had procedural fairness and felt that at the end of the day you were going to get more than a rubber stamp, you would have to say that the Assange case has been presented in a way that means that the political carve-out, that is, in the US-UK Treaty, the carve-out that says you cannot extradite people for political offences. You would have to say that's well and truly met. So that's where the case sits. I might just quickly, Joe, update people on the Australian Government position which hasn't shifted. However, what I would say is that there is now some real pressure for the Australian Government, Barnaby Joyce, former Deputy Prime Minister who is a Conservative, signed this letter. Andrew Wilkie, who is an independent MP, signed this letter. There are a number of Labor Party MPs in Australia who have signed letters and who are joining in calls for something to be done. The case is getting good press in Australia and particularly getting good press but it is getting good press in the middle of press and I've done a number of interviews and others have done interviews in Australia. So far as the case is concerned, it's still a way to go but you would have to say, and I would say as a lawyer, but also from a political perspective, this case is what we would say is just a no brainer. That is, it ought to be ended for a whole range of reasons which I don't need to spell out to you. And Assange ought to be allowed to move off into the sunset or sunshine. Anyway, look Joe, that's a quick update for you. I just want to say before I move to Polona that in the US, as my understanding having covered a number of court cases, it's very common to send stack of documents hours before. They just require to send the documents. I don't think I have a requirement about when. I can tell you Joe, it's a terrible practice and it's very unfair of course. I mean in most courts in Australia that wouldn't be tolerated, I'd have to say. But it's really shocked a lot of people because it's just grossly unfair. I mean, these are expert witnesses who need time to get through the material. Yeah, obviously it's interesting for you to hear you say that about Australia because I wasn't shocked at all. I just thought that was the normal procedure to do. On the other hand, I should say that in a US case, even someone accused of violent crime gets to sit with his attorneys not in a glass cage. Polona, please, tell us the update on the lawyer's letter. Well, if I can just give a bit of a background to the letter itself before we go to the update like the idea of the letter was, you know, just to point out what is obvious as Greg has said at this point, you know, all masks have fallen. We all see what's going on. So we are essentially just the boy in the crowd pointing at the emperor and saying he has no clothes because this is what everybody at this point should be doing. The whole tactic in this case has been to muddy the waters, to smear a sound, to make things unclear for the public to be in doubt of what is actually going on, who this person is, what he is guilty of. But now at this stage it is clear that they are using the Espionage Act to go after a journalist for, you know, something which are ordinary investigative journalistic practices. So there's no doubt anymore. And the more they try to say it was about unredacted documents the indictment speaks for itself. It's not about unredacted documents. It's about receiving you know what's called classified information. It's about publishing classified information. It's about any contact with your source which is again a normal practice. And the way they tried to make it that he is not a journalist, he is a hacker and he has communicated with Chelsea Manning to help her get the material. It was wrong. This was again trying to change what is actually the indictment for the public to have a different perspective on it. What was actually in the indictment is trying to criminalize trying to protect your source's identity. Again a standard journalistic, not just practice but moral duty. So what I'm trying to say is lawyers for Assange we are an international and independent group of people or lawyers, legal experts who have no stake in this apart from being concerned citizens and apart from feeling the moral obligation to speak up. And we have now had before I go to the politicians we have a lot of important lawyers assigning first. We have over 20 professors and if I can just give you some of the names we have the we have professors of criminal law constitutional law, public international law human rights law from all over the legal spectrum from different legal traditions so we have for example the chairperson of the international commission of jurists, we have the former swiss supreme court judge Joseph Nye, we have Chete Lund, the former Norwegian supreme court justice we have Desias who was the United Nations independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order. And then now with the politicians it brings it to a whole other level we have amongst others we have ministers for court, ministers for justice so this letter is really it's a six page long account of the most egregious abuses of fair trial of other human rights of Julian Assange and the call for an immediate end to these illegitimist proceedings and his immediate release so for the UK government to receive this letter they should respond, they should take it seriously and yes this is all I would like to say at this point Thank you Polona, Arta looks like your way in I'm just sort of flabbergasted by the whole thing and I think that's probably the reaction that a lot of people would have de facto, I mean this man has basically spent 50 weeks or more in solitary confinement for supposedly skipping bail on a charge that's never even been brought so I mean really he has done nothing effectively so this goes on, I mean I was brought up in the days when there were secret trials in Russia of spies in the middle of the Cold War and more recently China seems to grab people because they want a bargaining chip for somebody else who is in the courts some other countries court and we see this also in the Arab states and one of the things we said about the superiority of the Anglo democracies was the separation of the political system and the religious system and the judicial system and that was the key that the justice was not related to political considerations we have the British bending the rules completely in response to American pressure the extradition treaty appears to be going to be ignored and they've gone back to a 1917 act which presumably was at the height of the world war where in any extreme grab a spy was justified and more than 100 years old this more and so this is all just plowing ahead all the myths we had about freedom and democracy seem to be totally trash and I suppose it's the Five Eyes requirement for Australia to do what it's told and the UK to do what it's told and the new paradigm which the Russians say we can kill somebody anywhere the Chinese seem to be saying the same thing and now the Americans are saying our law applies everywhere in the world doesn't matter what jurisdiction it is our laws apply their laws roll over and say ok, well if your laws apply everywhere they apply here so here's whoever you want are they going to say the same when the Russians ask for someone or the Chinese ask for someone or is it just completely political and no way related to human rights these are the questions that are being asked and the answers seem sadly not the answers we want and pretty self evident really so I mean all that can be said is that a big fuss has to be made Thank you Arthur for that intervention Tony, Kevin How are you Tony? As an Australian and as a former diplomat I'm absolutely flabbergasted at what's been happening in London in the last two or three weeks it is horrifying it's as bad as any Stalinist show trial in Russia in the 1930s and I watched newsreels of Stalinist show trials in the Stalin Museum in Moscow it is just horrible and I just hope there will be an appeal against this grotesque travesty and I hope that the British legal profession are listening to some of this and realising that this is happening in their country if it were happening here in Australia I would be equally horrified but it's happening in Britain the mother of democracies and so on well reading through the list of politicians I'm very struck by the prevalence of Latin American names and I think this is a really important and significant thing because Latin America of course has been the subject of the American monarodocatron for so many decades centuries almost it's a huge regime change illegal and brutal and very often regime change against so many governments including the government that's very important in the Assange case the Ecuador government where there's been massive interference in Ecuador also in Colombia, Brazil Argentina Bolivia, Peru, Chile and all these names which leap out at me are saying that at the political level Latin America is outraged at what's being done in Britain now at American behest Julian Assange absolutely outraged and also I was pleased to see the name of a man I admire very much the former prime minister of Spain Zapatero Luis Zapatero and I wrote about him in my walking the Camino when I walked through Spain a few years ago this is significant and Britain has to take notice of this and the British legal system has to take notice of this so I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to express my support for this letter it's a magnificent encouragement it's getting from not only the legal profession but also a senior political figures Thank you Tony Greg at this point in the proceedings the person that needs to be influenced of course is magistrate Vanessa Barraza do you think she could see this letter and would it have any influence on her in your view? Probably not and the reason I say that is because magistrates and judges are generally generally generally immune to that sort of pressure in fact that tends to be counterintuitive however that doesn't in any way diminish the importance of this letter and the importance of the work of lawyers for Assange because at the end of the day this is a political decision I mean the Assange case could end tomorrow if Mariez Paine the Australian Foreign Minister would ring Mike Pompeo and say end this matter and Mike Pompeo agreed would end it tomorrow and if she were to do the same in relation to Dominic Raab a UK counterpart it could end tomorrow and so the importance of these letters is that they unprecedented in my view certainly the lawyers for Assange letter which I signed, I mean I've not seen a letter with that number and diversity of lawyers in many years but you know the and the same in relation to politicians where you have people from the left and the right so I think Joe the answer is they are extremely important but they are important at the political level and I think Barat's role is really you know one's always careful saying this about judges but one doesn't have a great deal of confidence in her stepping up to the plate and rejecting the application being made by Council for the United States I mean, she might surprise us but very few extradition requests get refused because too often what magistrates and judges say is well those issues you've raised are all very interesting but they're made as for the trial so I've just seen a part of the trial so that's why the political and the media campaign you know both fundamental we heard from a number of defense witnesses during the week clearly stating that prosecutions are decided in the United States, particularly on cases like this from at the political level very high one that in fact someone read out a memo from Attorney General William Barr in which he espoused this unitary executive theory which is that the president is the one que decide who gets prosecuted and who doesn't I mean these are like king-like powers that should not have any place in a so-called democracy so my question is I don't know if you know that much about what's going on in Britain but is there such political influence over prosecution or in this case an extradition that could be applied behind the scenes against all rules that one would hope would be in place that could happen in Britain as well but I think deep the director of public prosecutions although not directly involved in this case of course it's more the secretary of state the foreign secretary but you know these cases are inherently political Joe I think the real fear is in the United States though that there's no public interest in this prosecution none whatsoever that's usually a test for prosecutors where is the public interest there is no public interest in this case or examination of that concept of that concept of prosecutorial discretion in the UK though I think that there is a tendency to rubber stamp these types of proceedings in other words to sit there pretend that it's being taken seriously by the bench but in effect just to rubber stamp it and get it out of the UK legal system as quickly as possible Thank you Greg My understanding is that this is all your idea right your response to this letter how did you get this idea why did you get it and how difficult was it for you to put all this together it was not difficult if you look you can find it's not hidden anymore like I said if anyone took interest which not enough people are taking interest especially not the mainstream media which should be taking the main interest but yes it's not hidden find these things despite the court making it very difficult to observe proceedings they are keeping out as many people as possible and we've seen now even Amnesty International has been denied observer status and of course Lawyers for Science also applied we didn't get it but still we have Craig Murray always giving very detailed accounts of what's going on in the courtroom and we know from the UN a reportura on torture we know the torture that's been going on so again it's not hidden how I came to the idea I have to really give thanks to doctors for science because they were the ones coming to all the public speeches and they were saying we need something like this also for Lawyers, the same kind of initiative so the idea came from them and the idea for doctors came from a father and the son saying we have to do something so this is really normal people coming together yes now we have incredible names endorsing us which is wonderful but it just goes to show that normal ordinary people can do something if they stand together and not be divided and being afraid of the state but I would also like to say that as we got many signatories we also had a lot of people being super reluctant to put their names not because they don't agree but because they're afraid for their careers they're afraid what their colleagues will say so it's a very I would really like to thank everybody that has signed and not just the big names the small names because the smaller you are the more baby your career is the more you are vulnerable to somebody ending your career especially in this country I have to say we saw first hand the pressure people signing and then oh I would draw my signature for whatever reason and then you really why this reason and then you find out that has nothing to do with that but it was just pressure from behind the scenes so yes what else I wanted to say I just wanted to comment on all the South American signatories in South America there is something very common and this is essentially what's going on in the Assange case all the different laws are being used but essentially it has nothing to do with the law it's a political prosecution and the law is just as a cover and we've seen it before with previous accusations against Julian Assange which had all the proceedings were not fair even the UN legal reporter on torture said that he himself witnessed at least 40 procedural mistakes so to speak in the way his case was handled in Sweden and the only reason he knew that is because he speaks Swedish so he could see first hand the documents so this is law fair it's denying the person actually the protection of the law the right of the freedom of press by the first amendment in the United States is protected by the European Convention of Human Rights is protected by the Human Rights Act in the UK but it's completely ignored in this case so we are going to espionage act or the British equivalent of this act which are extremely problematic unconstitutional against human rights and we're just clanging on to these acts which have no public interest exceptions to them and saying oh this is now legal and legitimate proceeding it's not, it's against fundamental human rights and if I can quote one of the professors of law who has signed of constitutional law his name is András Dershik from Slovenia so this is not just about freedom of the press this is about the right to dignity the right of all of us to act as political creatures as political animals as Aristotle would put it so this is a really really fundamental question of democracy of being able to know what is going on and being to act able to act accordingly not being in the dark and just going to vote for one or the other candidate but knowing nothing what is actually going on behind the scenes so yeah I hope that answers your question it does I wanted to alter and turn the way in but I just had another mundane question about the process did you actually approach these leaders yourself did you write to Jeremy Corbin's office to President Dilma Rousseff to Lula how did that happen me personally, this is a group effort I just wrote the letter and with the help of another member of our team but the collecting the signatories anyone who knew how to approach anyone joined the effort so this is not definitely not just my effort there's many many people involved in collecting the signatories I approached the Slovenian ones others approached others so yeah it's not on me I don't want to take credit for that by any means I'm glad we got that clear only a couple of US politicians on there former congressman Ron Paul former senator Michael Vell do you know if any other Americans will approach I mean we got Jeremy Corbin one might think Bernie Sanders may have signed this or Chelsea got it Bernie Sanders has previously you know not given his support so I wouldn't have expected him to sign but I don't know if he was approached or not I don't know who all was approached who denied I don't know all the details of that unfortunately okay yeah Chelsea Gabbard has any case Arthur yeah I mean I praise Polona's work I mean it's fantastic I mean those signatures didn't come from nowhere they've done a lot of work there you might be playing it down but it's a lot of work I reckon I collected signatures and I know you just don't get knocked on the door they don't just roll out with their signatures and things straight away that's very fantastic work you're in a unique position if I think about having signed both the doctors and the politicians letters yeah well that might be right too great stuff going to be famous for something yes ask you this Arthur by the way you guys could just join in anytime you want but we're talking about the Espionage Act de now that a British a western country is behaving in the way that it is but if you look at the entire history of the Espionage Act from the very beginning it was pushed by Woodrow Wilson to stop opposition to American entry to shut up editors to shut up politicians and he jailed many many many people under this edition act part of it that were put in after and then taken out and repealed from the Espionage Act but those so many journalists and editors were jailed but for trying to tell their readers to resist the draft never for obtaining and publishing classified or defense information as a Songha so that is the distinction I wonder if we should look at the entire history and there are many cases that were laid out by Carrie Shanklin the this expert on the Espionage Act but FDR tried to indict editors at the Chicago Tribune for information they put out about the battle Midway Nixon actually impaneled a grand jury to try to indict two New York Times reporters for publishing the Pentagon Papers and of course the Obama administration came very close to actually indicting a Songha so this is a theme that's run throughout the entire history of the Espionage Act so I wonder I mean how democratic our systems really are we've moved to a new phase now where the ugliness of it the mask is off, I think someone said because this indictment did go through under the Trump administration how chilling is this, not only for the press but for what we believe about ourselves to be democratic and open societies I think this is a major impression I have from watching the last couple of weeks it's a sense of horror that this could be happening em London, I've already covered that but also I'm enormously impressed and we owe a lot to Craig Murray to know all this at the agility of the defence at the relevance of the witnesses they're putting up and at the incredible display of information that's coming out now about what's been going on look it's enthralling it's enthralling to read Craig Murray's stories of what people are saying it was enthralling to actually hear from Daniel Ellsberg on your program in the last couple of days and John Pilter of course history is being made in these days and I don't want to believe that Berets will ignore all this I want to believe that somehow or other something must be getting through to her because I mean it's happening no courtroom this is not a magistrate saying I won't take notice of political influence from outside it's what she's hearing and surely if the person has any professionalism she will respond somehow to this what do other people think if she has it indeed or you know there's other interests that interest her more than being a professional I'll tell you one thing she heard because she couldn't avoid hearing it because it was out right there in the courtroom was a recitation of unbelievable crimes torture and assassination programs and the kidnapping of a wrong suspect that was all spelled out and excruciating detail right there in the courtroom to the consternation of James Lewis QC for the United States and the American attorneys that are sitting behind him in the courtroom there this was for me extraordinary our legal analyst Alexander McPuris has pointed out that during the some of the troubles and some of the trials in Northern Ireland you may have heard in British court details of what the British army may have done but to hear this in a court of an ally as strong as Britain to hear these details of US crimes that WikiLeaks revealed and the value of WikiLeaks she's heard all that could that penetrate someone who seems to be so much a part of the system that believes that the US and Britain do que a democracia não faz nada não faz nada é que vamos esperar que penetra mas também vamos esperar que o público faça um notiz alguém disse que isso é o empéreo no trial não é um sonho que é uma descrição de o que está acontecendo e você sabe que está dizendo que ela limitou os notícias para 30 minutos que se afore que eles vão dizer muito muito muito que vão sair na examinação de 2 horas em pontos relacionados 100% alguma informação boa que está saindo que foi lá antes, mas, de novo, é no spotlight e se eles fossem inteligentes, eles deveriam ter deixado um sonho e não tocar isso, porque isso parece muito ruim para eles e, claro, nós podemos dependir de notícias como o Daily Mail e o Sydney Morning Harvest não, um outburst um outburst de Julian Assange isso é uma grande história não é? e você sabe que em termos da mística da mística, o jeito que eles afrontaram o deal, que foi devido ou sugestido a Assange para dizer que ligaram as e-mails antes da elecção e que isso ia elefrar para eles e o jeito que a mística afrontou é que eles perguntaram o que se diz e o jeito que a mística afrontou o que se diz e, claro, ai tem até que eles afrontam a mística e o jeito que elefram o que se diz e quem sabe que eles afrontam a mística e os que afrontam a mística E, de fato, eles queriam que ele se publicasse antes de que eles fossem só republitzando. E ele percebeu que ele iria dar o tempo para o mundo todo, pessoalmente. Ele não se publicou, e então eles, claro, foram convidados a seus mortos, os seus presos estavam rolando e eles não poderiam parar. E eles se publicaram antes de que ele fosse. Agora, ninguém realmente se trouxe isso. Se você quer ser técnico sobre isso, ele não se publicou depois de todas essas grandes notícias. Eu acho que a Guardia e o Time de New York já publicaram isso. E eu acho que tem uma na Alemanha também. Ninguém disse, o que, vocês, vocês fizeram isso? Nós vamos pegar os grandes garotos. Não, não, não. Nós vamos pegar o pequeno garoto e destruir ele. Porque o pequeno garoto é onde ele vem de no final. E ele tem um apoio tão pequeno de essas pessoas, que, claro, tinham uma grande publicidade e, presumivelmente, grandes revinhos da sua história. Quer dizer, é uma história de cowardice. Muito maluco. É verdade. Em termos de influenciar o magistrado, o mytho é, eu acho, ou talvez isso é certo, ou talvez isso é bom, que os juízes são apenas supostos para actos sobre o que acontece com evidência em seus corpos. Eles não são supostos para ser influenciados por qualquer outro acto de fora, a publicidade, a capital da fronteira, mas o político não diz nada mais, não é? Então, tecnicamente, o que nós estamos fazendo não é suposto para influenciar o magistrado, apenas o que está sendo feito no courts, e essa evidência que parece ser tão impressionante, deve influenciar ela, mas ela verá que o que é influenciando horrendamente, bem, é a feda política, que ela não é suposta para qualquer conhecimento ou preocupação. A primeira vez que a senha apareceu antes, o juiz chamou-se de um narcista que não pode ir além de o que se chama de interesse de selfies. Mas para dizer isso para a pessoa que, na primeira vez, aparece em seus corpos, o que isso te diz sobre ser influenciado da campanha de smear, antes disso, isso não é um juiz imparcial, ou um juiz imparcial, isso é justamente terrível. Sim. Bem, também é absurdo dizer que alguém que publicou algo de um grande risco para o mundo é um narcista. Ou seja, hola, precisamos de alguns mais narcistas, se isso é o caso. Se esses eram narcistas, sim, levá-los. Posso entrar e lembrar algo que me impressionou enormemente, nos últimos dois dias? Quando a senha apareceu da sua caixa, eu não vou ter a evidência de uma vítima de tortura supostada. Poxa, isso foi um momento maravilhoso. E ele ensinou, ele tinha seguido o processo em grande detalhe, e ensinou que ele estava preparado para o risco de ser silenciado pela direita majoria, porque ela se trocou várias vezes. Mas isso foi um ponto importante. Foi sobre almascaria. Depois de, você sabe, nós estávamos aprendendo, ou nós continuamos aprendendo através da lista de ler isso, sobre as coisas terríveis que estávamos fazendo com a almascaria, um homem inocente. E aqui é a senha riscando sua própria infância para outra pessoa. Então, esse homem não é um narcista, ele é um herói. O opposito dos narcistas, sim. Oh, a tradição aqui continua. E, de novo, começamos em Monday, mais ou menos outra semana, ou dois... O que é o que a decisão vai ser. Mas, claro, isso é o High Court. E isso é onde algumas pessoas pensam que ele pode ter uma melhor chance. Porque podem ser even conservadores que gostam de estar para a lei. E eles veem o que transpirem nesse porto. O pequeno caso que os Estados Unidos têm. E o que foi dado a James Lewis. Eu acho que ele foi frustrado e levou-o ao Barraza. Foi um escudo incrível, em que ele estava basicamente sentindo-se. Agora, Polona, você disse que eles têm dois horas, onde a defensa só tem uma quarta-feira. Na verdade, eles têm quatro horas. Sim. Em todas as horas. Sim. Ele perguntava por quatro horas, ele estava dando quatro horas. E ainda assim, ele protestou muito sobre esse limite no seu tempo. Eu acho que... Uma das coisas que é tão estranhas, é que, claro, para certeza, não há um limite contra a informentação. Há um limite contra os agentes, agentes do governo, mas não a informentação. Porque havia um cenário da U.S. que tentou fazer uma informentação em 2010, porque não havia sido um e falava. Mas o governo pode decidir o que a informação defensa e o que é. Então, eles decidiram que a informentação é a informação defensa. Por isso, é uma violência. Sim. Esses são os hoops legais que estão sendo jumpados e um que só esperava que a Ritza, que parece estar vindo um pouco mais do que antes, você concordaria com a Polona? Ela... Sim. Isso parece ser a impressão. Sim. Parece. Parece que ela está começando a ser um pouco frio sobre o whole thing. O mais de facto, o mais difícil é para jogar esse jogo que eles estão jogando. Mas, até agora, ela tem sido muito no lado da perseguição, que foi tão claro que não foi um combate. Também, uma vez que a Sandra não conseguiu lhe mostrar com seus rolls, a perseguição disse que fica bem. Ele pode. E a justiça disse, não, e então ela foi ir mais longe do que quer. Em vez de serem invadeu a sua defensa. Então, sim. Mas, sim, parece ser que ela está aguentando um pouco. Bem, é sério. Esta evidência Continuously makes an impression. Let's meet again sometime and reassess what's going on in this case. And Paulina, thank you for all your efforts. And that Arthur, thank you for joining us. To give us your input. And Tony as well. You're absolutely right. That was a powerful moment that during the sun. Brought to the court and it was interesting because Barate, when he said that it will not stand that the testimony of a torture will be suppressed. Well, she didn't tell him if you do that again. I'll kick you out. She just asked him back. Sit down. And then she allowed the evidence to least be read in great detail. By Mark Summers, the defense team. So again, thank you to everyone and thank you again next Saturday. And don't forget to watch my daily video reports on the courtroom as consortium news has video access and is watching every moment of this extraordinary extradition hearing. Talks sobre sur waive and live tweet on consortium news and our live updates on the website. Which by the way come out before Craig Murray's story. Craig's commentary detailed because it seems to have access to some maybe some the transcript it looks like which I don't think is a problem and Quin comer. Again, thank you all for joining us. This is Joeania, ICUU my. V ه  Ô Legendas por Paulo Montenegro