 Welcome to CN Live's continuing coverage of Julian Assange's extradition hearing taking place in London at the Old Bailey. I'm Joe Laurier, the editor-in-chief of Consortium News reporting for CN Live. Well we were anticipating Thursday to be the really dramatic day, the final day of testimony as the defense said they would need beyond Thursday in which they were granted permission by Venetza the judge in the Assange case to give anonymity to two Spanish witnesses who have testified with protection in the case of UC Global and the information that was going to be released as we heard yesterday involved surveillance of Assange at the embassy and the giving of that material to the United States government, the prosecuting government. Well as the court began today we learned from Claire Dobbin the prosecutor that the attempt by the prosecution to vet these anonymous witnesses they were given the names. The Department of Justice found they were unable legally to do any kind of vetting of these two witnesses because a third party was involved Spain. If it was just the US and Britain it appears that they probably would have been able to do that or just Spain in the US but I don't know the exact law that she cited but because there were three nations the US could not vet those witnesses so the government was not going didn't need any more time they were given 24 hours which is why we thought Thursday this would happen. Venetza Vereza then asked Dobbin but does the defense the sorry does the prosecution stand a challenge dispute is the word she used to dispute the evidence and Dobbin said that she heard from Mr. Lewis on Tuesday and in fact Lewis did not challenge the evidence. At that moment Mark Summers a defense attorney jumped to his feet and started reading from the defense witnesses these secret or anonymous witnesses from the Spanish case so Thursday became Wednesday what we were looking for and there was a big buildup was suddenly upon us Mark Summers was reading the testimony of these two anonymous witnesses former employees of UC global the Spanish company hired by the Ecuadorian government to provide security at the Ecuador embassy in London during the time that Julian Assange was living there. I want to take you through this testimony a lot of this had been reported before by LPAs or by Max Blumenthal at Greyzone but keep in mind this is now testimony in a courtroom it's not just a press report this is testimony in a case to determine the future of Julian Assange and the future course of WikiLeaks. We've been hearing for four weeks about Assange his health the conditions of American prisons that he didn't release and form its names others did the government's in billing this case Vereza has to make a decision whether to send Julian Assange there everybody knows what's at stake terms of freedom of the press and Julian Assange's own life so to have this testimony come in and to have Vereza hear it is a very very the post the most significant moment I think in the four weeks so I'll take you through what the first witness said he described how he worked for David Morales who was a former Spanish special forces soldier who founded global UC global and this first witness was a 50% owner with Morales so they were partners the witness discussed how in July 2016 Morales was going to a security conference in Las Vegas the partner wanted to go with him I guess as a partner would normally do but Morales insisted he go alone which this witness had to receive to and when he returned Morales to Spain to the offices he spoke of a flashy contract with the owner of the sands casino in Las Vegas that would be billionaire Sheldon Adelson a close donor and confidant of Donald Trump of Benjamin Netanyahu he owns newspapers in Israel he owns casinos and Macau and in the US and he's a very influential political donor for the Republicans Morales comes back and says I got a contract with Adelson I'm gonna we're gonna be doing security on the yacht until this point the witness said the only contract that they had really was at the Ecuadorian embassy and to protect the family of the Ecuadorian president that was it essentially so he came back with this contract to provide security at the yacht the witness says that was odd because the yacht already had security and then Morales spoke more and he said where he was very excited about what the contract he'd come up with when he came back from Las Vegas and he said we're now playing in the big leagues the firm has switched over to the dark side and he said he's now working with American friends who quote will get us contracts all over the world so he was quite excited about working with American friends with contracts all over the world the witness then in time learned that Morales had quote obtained an illegal contract to get sensitive information about Julian Assange and the president of Ecuador the witness says Morales' contact in Las Vegas was a Zohar Lahav and he's an Israeli-American vice president for executive protection at the Las Vegas Sands he's the head of security there and the witness said that Lahav had quote agreed to cooperate with US intelligence to provide them with information about Assange that's what this anonymous witness testified Max Boondar has written quite a lot about Lahav but again this is testimony in a British court that Lahav was the contact with US intelligence to provide them with the information about Assange that USC would obtain for Sands and for Lahav and then for US intelligence they've been using in the embassy cameras that did not provide audio and the members of UC Global were writing daily reports from London and that parallel agreement with the US authorities required that these reports be sent to the dark side as Morales called it so it began right away it appears that these written reports are being sent back to the US until the United States could set up the operation that they really wanted and that would be a camera that also had audio as well video and ultimately they set up a live stream back to the United States but the first part of that was to set up the audio and the video and someone had to fly every two weeks from Spain to London to get the hard drive on which these two weeks of video and audio was stored massive hard drive and would be brought back to Spain and Morales would fly literally to the US to present his contacts with the surveillance tapes at one point this witness one asked Morales who who are these American friends and the witness said the answer was from Morales US intelligence when I asked him specifically who he cut me off so at this point we really don't know what's the CIO that's been widely reported is it really only two agencies of the US intelligence that could have done this and that would be the Central Intelligence Agency which has a vast electronic surveillance and collection department and unit that is never talked about because everyone points to the National Security Agency which is the other agency that could have done this they are devoted to electronic surveillance they are the electronic surveillance and agency for the United States when the CIA has developed its own vast collection of electronic data not only human intelligence so these are the CIA or the NSA but he would not tell him which is interesting but he did tell him who's US intelligence these were the American friends meanwhile by the way the witness noticed that Morales had suddenly grown extremely wealthy noticeably wealthier than he had been and later he testified that Morales was paid by the US government 200,000 euros a month to do this job to get the dirt on Assange to eavesdrop and surveil Julian Assange at the embassy the witness testified that after Donald Trump's election in 2016 and his inauguration in 20 in January 2017 that Morales just trips to the US started to increase and that it was in July 2017 that he ordered the cameras at the embassy be replaced to provide the audio as well as the images came after Trump's election now Trump appointed a CIA director which is another reason why I think it's the CIA Mike Pompeo he was not secretary of state at that point he was CIA director and if we all know in his very first speech made in speech a CIA director he made a good deal of it about WikiLeaks and how he was going to go after them as an on state hostile intelligence agency and he had to bring down WikiLeaks so clearly Pompeo had Assange in his crosshairs that came after the Vault 7 release which was the worst leak in the history of the CIA from their point of view in the public's point of view the best leak that we learned how the CIA does many things and many things were were redacted and withheld by WikiLeaks in that instance Vault 7 again is not part of the indictment but it really seemed to upset Pompeo I think Pompeo was the driving force behind this entire operation the witnesses are naming Trump but without Trump there would be no Pompeo so the Trump administration led by CIA director Mike Pompeo is when these changes were made the camera with the audio in July 2017 at that point still a team had to go to every week to London from Spain to collect the recordings on the hard drives now Morales according to this witness demonstrated an obsession with audio and video surveillance of Assange's meetings particularly with his lawyers prioritized the meetings with the lawyers why because quote the American friends had requested it so the Americans were especially they wanted everything that Assange was doing but they were especially intent on getting the audio in the video of Assange meeting with his lawyers which is clearly a violation of attorney client privilege in fact that is one of the charges against Morales in Spain that he had violated Assange's privacy and he violated attorney privilege his attorney client privilege Morales is on trial for those charges as well as money laundering and these witnesses that I'm speaking to you about now were testified against him in this trial in Madrid and they were his former employees in fact this first witness was a former was his partner they've testifying against him that's why by the way they've asked for anonymity because they were afraid of repercussions and retaliation from this form of special special forces man from Spain who the police found in his house loaded arms with serial numbers filed off so they had legitimate fear that granted anonymity in the Spanish court and Barreza also granted them anonymity in this court in Old Bailey when this partner learned that the obsession was with the lawyers and that the Americans have requested it he states I then put an end to our relationship and sold my shares so he pulled out would not work with him because he considered this to be illegal second witness joined UC global in February 2015 as an IT expert he repeated what Morales that Morales came back from the US first US trip and announced that we're moving into the Premier League and that company is now moving to the dark side Morales then said that the American friends were vetting UC global so that everything had to be encrypted at the office this is the this is the IT expert now testifying so he was asked to encrypt everything because the Americans are vetting the company again he mentions after Trump's victory Morales became obsessed with obtaining as much information as possible on a son and asked the witness this witness testifying to create a task force to capture and process the embassy material so it was even more specialized again when Trump came into office and Pompeo against CIA director this witness too was ordered to put new cameras in when we discussed before and he was told not to share the specifications of those cameras and said that he was ordered to live and he went asked him whether the cameras could also record audio when he was up there in London at the embassy in 27 in June 2017 Morales received instructions from the US that the cameras needed to be installed to provide streaming service so that quote our friends in the US could gain access to the interior of the embassy in real time that's the testimony of the witness so it evolved to a camera with sound and now they want a 24-7 access Morales told this witness that those instructions came quote from the highest spheres the witness says I was alarmed and I told him it wasn't possible to do but Morales then later soon after that emailed instructions written in English which the witness assumed came from the American friends instructions and how to set up the live streaming but the witness still refused because he said it was manifestly illegal quote in January 2017 going a few months ago the witness had said Morales had asked him to bug the entire embassy on the orders of the Americans this is in addition to the camera would sound Morales said the purpose was to record meetings with visitors but especially with his attorneys personnel in the embassy were asked to monitor the lawyers as requested by the American friends the witness testified they were also asked to you see global to gather Assange's fingerprints from a glass a drinking glass to steal documents from Assange and then to steal the diaper and this has been reported again this is testimony Morales is listening to this to steal documents from Assange and then to steal the diaper of a baby who was regularly brought to visit Assange the Americas wanted to establish whether that baby was Assange's was Assange's whether he was the father and they wanted the DNA but the witness he refused to do that and instead he alerted the mother which we now know is Stelomars not to bring the child back to the embassy so we have two upstanding members of the public in Spain here two employees who would not tolerate this illegal behavior and this is why they're testifying now and their lives are on the threat they have armed guards at some time Mark Stummer the defense attorney said yesterday in January 2019 the witness said he was ordered this is interesting I this I'd never heard before and I think this is new just a detail that in January 2019 the witness testified that he was ordered to put stickers saying CCTV or this surveillance by CCTV on the all the windows of the embassy and he didn't understand why they wanted to do that and so he asked what was the purpose and the witness testified that Morales told him quote the Americans were using a laser phone to listen into the embassy but that Assange was using a white noise machine which you've heard about before and quote that caused vibration of the windows the stickers eliminated the vibrations so they had bugs on his on a fire hydrant and other places in his room and there's not a very large room you've seen some of the video now they had 24 7 audio and video surveillance and they had a laser phone presumably from across the road into the embassy and the they needed to put stickers on the windows to keep the vibrations also they could listen so they had three ways of monitoring him this second anonymous witness testified that in 2017 he was shown an iPad that an Assange lawyer had left or came into the possession of the guards at the embassy apparently everybody went to visit Assange had to leave iPhones iPads all kinds of equipment with them and we know that they were taking serial numbers down of these phone numbers and apparently in this case they made a full copy of the iPad of one of Assange's lawyers the witness says the Americans were very very nervous about the visit of then-Californian congressman Dana Rohrbacher to see Assange a quote Morales asked me to control everything to do with that visit witness two said we heard testimony from Jen Robinson I think last week about that visit so we can go back and listen to the detail of that I also wrote about it it was essentially the the fence is arguing that this is a political prosecution one of the other arguments that it's a political prosecution because a Trump came according to Rohrbacher with the deal Assange reveals the source of the Russian excuse me of the DNC emails that it wasn't Russia to prove that and Trump would pardon him or drop the any prosecution that was going on Assange refused to protect his source and it was after that the Trump went after him and I think I think Pompeo had a big role in that so Morales Morales also spoke to this witness about entering the Spanish offices of Assange lawyer that there's our garcon and in fact some months later was reported in the press that his offices in Spain were broken into now the witness talked about extreme measures that were taken in December 2017 the witness testified that quote the U.S. was desperate to get Assange out of the embassy and that more extreme measures should be used of course he's getting this from Morales who's talking every month maybe two weeks is flying to the U.S. to meet with his handle is there he quotes a Morales the witness saying that leaving the embassy door open to allow mr Assange to be kidnapped and even poisoning him was under consideration this is sworn testimony in O'Bailey before Vanessa Barraza on Wednesday Summers for the defense Mark Summers then explained to the court how both witnesses approached an attorney these two who in Spain who contacted a court in Madrid that put out an arrest warrant search and analysis home and issued the charges against him what does this all mean well I'm going to quote from someone who felt this morning after he read and our written reports tweets and he saw my video last night it got him quite excited that's Daniel Ellsberg of course depending on papers whistleblower who was on day seven a defense witness in this hearing Ellsberg wrote this in an email message that he said he sent to several interviews so probably been public somewhere else as well but he wrote this there has been a dramatic development and he wrote this by the way Wednesday morning while he still thought the testimony that I've just discussed would be on Thursday which we all thought until at the last moment the US government said they couldn't let those witnesses so the door was open to do it today and the defense walked through that door and gave us this dramatic testimony today and not tomorrow so Ellsberg writes there's been a dramatic development in the Assange case word that on Thursday giving a day for the prosecutors to confer with the DOJ they will be anonymous testimony that the CIA not only surveilled Assange's conversations with his lawyers and everyone else in the Ecuadorian embassy but they plotted to kidnap or poison him that's essentially Ellsberg writes the same information that ended my case and confronted Nixon with impeachment leading to his resignation in other words truly in May miraculously walk free on the basis of this eventually just as I did it's impossible to know exactly the impact all this has had on Vanessa Barate's that she allowed the testimony to go and without objection from the defense it's significant but the testimony is from an ongoing case that has not been adjudicated yet in Spain so in other words there what they're testifying to has not been proven yet in court but Barate's in may very well take that into account I pretty much assume she will but her decision won't come until January so that case in Spain may be wrapped up by that or may not so that might play a role it's really impossible to know what Barate's thinking but this testimony today that we heard showed the prosecuting government had prioritized surveillance on Assange's privilege conversations with his attorneys eavesdropped on the defense preparations the prosecution persecuting government eavesdropped on defense preparations through surveillance video and audio and the government U.S. government considered kidnapping or even killing him that has to weigh on Barate's mind and as to the to the extent of it being government misconduct like in the Daniel Ellsberg case Ellsberg case they broke into a psychiatrist's office to get dirt on him they eavesdropped on his phone they tried to bribe the judge in his case with the FBI directorship whenever all became known there was a mistrial Daniel Ellsberg worked free out of that court and he was facing almost a hundred i think a hundred and seventeen years and Assange faces 175 basically the rest of both of their lives he was free because government misconduct was revealed well we heard these witnesses today testifying about very serious government misconduct if it if it doesn't sway Barate so this testimony might very well work inside a of the British High Court on appeal that's something also to keep in mind then i want to just talk a little bit about the other testimony there was other testimony before and after that actually one the first was Patrick Coburn the journalist for the independent the Middle East correspondent there's been a war correspondent the Middle East correspondent from the 1970s he testified it was written these were all that i'm going to tell you now was read by summers to the court nobody else appeared on the stand or even on video today no one did although you uh he says Patrick that as a war correspondent Afghanistan and then Iraq that there were many things that they'd heard his colleagues and he about Americans massacring civilians but they could never prove it and that was the value he's saying of weak elites because they were able to prove what the collateral murder video with other documents and other evidence that the U.S. indeed was killing civilians and it appeared intentionally or at least without any negligently and he also Coburn hit on a theme that's gone over and over again but these are the important things for the defense that no informant was harmed by WikiLeaks naming any informants and they did that of course after others had published first and we'll get to that in a minute that's already been testified before but it came up again and he quoted Coburn Brigadier General Carr in the Chelsea man in court Marshall in which General Carr testified that they had not found any informant who had been killed that the Taliban had said that they killed one killed an informant named in WikiLeaks the government U.S. government investigated found that it wasn't true that they were lying that that name never appeared in WikiLeaks so no one was ever damaged harmed physically killed or injured by a WikiLeaks release and that's the key part of the government's argument here it's all about the informants if you've been watching these videos um so um let's see if that's still Patrick Coburn yeah Coburn called this a said that WikiLeaks was a great victory against secrecy in the government and he quoted Robert Lowe in a member parliament 1857 apparently made a very famous remark about fulfilling the obligations of news gathering and Coburn quoted that Robert Lowe in saying from 1852 that Assange and WikiLeaks in fact had fulfilled all the obligations of news gathering next I want to talk about I'm going to go to every testimony because someone more significant than others Stefania Maurizzi an Italian journalist work fellow Espresso and La Repubblica who's been on our show she started working on WikiLeaks material back in 2009 she's a mathematician I learned I did not know that about Stefania and she has an expertise in encryption so you could see what she became interested in WikiLeaks and their new form of journalism that they that they were bringing out and that's 2009 that's pretty early in WikiLeaks beginnings and they work together as a local partner with WikiLeaks on the garbage crisis in Naples I don't know if anyone remembers that I do there was a a strike I believe or there was a corruption with the Komora which is the mafia down there don't hold me to this that they were not collecting the garbage for some reason and it became a serious health crisis WikiLeaks actually revealed information for Stefania for her to report in Espresso at the time but of course made it the most importantly she then began working on the Afghan war diaries and she said that the she did this because she thought this type of journalism could change the course of history can affect government policy and change it and that WikiLeaks made that possible or easier for investigative reporters like herself and the key case she discussed was the 26 CIA agents who were actually convicted in abstention in Italy for the rendition of a man sent to Egypt I remember that case clear I think most of you do as well the CIA was at in the heyday of their torture and black sites and renditions they operated on Italian soil to kidnap this man and send him to Egypt to be tortured and a brave prosecutor and judge in Italy just like the ones in Spain right now ones who actually give you a feeling that not everybody's corrupt in this world including those two witnesses that there are people who stand up and even risked their lives to speak the truth about things well this judge they convicted these 26 CIA agents but of course they're living in the US well Italy tried to extradite them and this is where WikiLeaks came in as Stefania said in her written testimony right out in court that the US put enormous pressure on Italy not to extradite the CIA agents you might remember the John Gertz testimony from a couple of weeks ago when the same thing happened a court in Munich actually wanted the extradition of CIA agents who had taken part in similar activity and Germany wouldn't do it and in this case Italy wouldn't do it but the WikiLeaks document showed that it was the pressure the US government applies on their allies on their junior partners in Europe and the Italian they have a lot of leverage in terms of money and what not and power and the Italian government refused to go forward with the extradition they caved to this pressure and Stefania reads he only knew about that because of WikiLeaks cables that diplomatic cables in which she found one in which this pressure was outlined in detail by the United States just like in the John Gertz case she also said spoke a lot about the professionalism of WikiLeaks of Assange that she'd never actually seen anything as thorough as that and she even she and her colleagues who covered the mafia in Italy and there's a lot of risk in doing that obviously that she explained to them what WikiLeaks was going through and they had never known of that kind of ways of protecting yourself online on the phone etc to stay safe that WikiLeaks was employing so it was exemplary at the time she said and again she laid into David Lee and Luke Harding the two Guardian journalists who wrote the book about WikiLeaks I recommend Jonathan Cook's a new article about that which we've republished this morning on consortium news in which he is explaining I didn't quite get this that David Lee and Luke Harding wanted to write an official biography an approved biography of Assange in other words with his participation and Assange refused they he says Cook that that would have made them a lot more money so they were ticked off at him whether that was a motive or not but they published a password to the encrypted unredacted cables that had the names of the informants that the government is going hot pursuit after Assange for when it was the password published and then the German newspaper the fluorotype and then on September 1, Krypton and then only on September 2, 2011 did Assange publish the unredacted cables because the information was out there already and she said that Maritzi Stefanius said that she wondered if they Harding and and David Lee understood the process at all she also added that she was at Ellingham Hall that's the place where the owner and the founder of the Frontline Club it's in a state that he has somewhere I think in the Midlands or somewhere outside London and that's where Assange stayed when he was awaiting the case going all the way up to Supreme Court of whether he was going to be extradited to Sweden for questioning no charges of a file in those sexual allegations case she was there at Ellingham Hall when this whole thing happened in fact she said she arrived on August 25th and it was August 26th that Freightide published their article and she saw him and you can see this in the film by Laura Portres risk Assange on the phone to the State Department trying to call Hillary Clinton and trying to explain to them what is going on that these things have gotten loose now and they're gonna they're gonna be people in trouble and he wanted to work with State Department to help redact these names to help them find the names immediately so they can help try to redact them and as Ellsberg testified the U.S. government didn't bother helping but now they complained that he let the informants names out so that was the testimony of Stefani Marizzi and then we heard from a Robert J. Boyle a lawyer in New York who I won't go into the details but Boyle was is an expert on the grand jury and he went through a long history particularly of the Chelsea Manning case when she was called back in the grand jury refused to testify was in prison was in in solitary confinement at the Alexandria Detention Center which Gordon Cromberg U.S. Attorney there says does not exist but she was not only there but attempted to commit suicide three days before her hearing on whether they'd be released and that's when the judge finally released him but she'd been of almost two years I think if there's anyone to have these informants fines five hundred and then thousand dollars a day because she refused to provide more testimony against Julian Sange but this was a history of the grand jury and it's he said that it began in 12th century England and it was originally a buffer between the state and the people but by today in the United States and I think there's only one on the country in the world I think it's Liberia that has a grand jury I'm not certain about that that today it's the opposite that it's a buffer for the government against the people that it protects the government that a prosecutor could could prosecute just about anyone because of the rules of secrecy because there's no cross-examination there are no witnesses there the government just presents evidence and tells the grand jury indict that person and it's not like 90 percent or more of the times they get the indictment so that was to show that how easy it was for the government to indict Julian Sange part of the strategy of the defense and another part was cleverly to bring a jury pool expert on and he or she I can't remember it now but said started to list all of the government agencies mostly linked to intelligence and defense contractors to intelligence defense that exist in the northern Virginia area and in Washington DC which is of course where Sange would go on trial if he goes there to Alexandria Virginia so where would the jurors if there's even going to be jurors where would the jurors be drawn from from the intelligence and military contracting community for the most part that's the kind of people that live there that's the job the major jobs especially in northern Virginia where the most of the contractors are set up so that was just a way to tell Barraza if he goes there he's not going to get a trial by his peers certainly not in northern Virginia and that's one reason they bring these cases to that courtroom in Alexandria it's known as a national security court because they can get convictions a good part of the reason why because of the jury pool that they can draw from uh I'll just wrap up now by saying that Norm Chomsky spoke but I did not I was writing up the report on the witness uh the Spanish witnesses so I did not get to hear except I overheard him say about the the role of publicity in a society like America and Europe in caution uh the public's right to know so he was testifying for Assange I guess and saying that he played a big role in informing the public against a system that's geared towards not informing the public and I think that was I have to look at his testimony over maybe I'll talk to you about that tomorrow so to wrap up here this I have to say that when you look at the entire defense argument that's been presented and it's going to end tomorrow Thursday there will be no Friday session unless something happens on foreseeing okay yeah so we I want to wrap this up by saying that the defense has brought together an amazing case I'm trying this big objective here and they have a story that they're trying to tell which they believe is the truth and they brought out enormous number of witnesses so that in their words they could lay out this story for Vanessa. The story is that this is a man doing journalistic activity he was extremely careful no informants were harmed he's published public interest information like Coburn said like others have said and testified he's not harmed informants he's conducted journalistic practice it's been in the public interest they discuss his health his serious mental and physical disabilities and in conjunction with that the state of U.S. prisons particularly Salter confinement under the special administrative measures giving an opening to the judge to realize that the man doesn't stand a chance of he goes to the U.S. and goes to that jail and then even to learn about the kind of juries that will the kind of a jury he would get and finally the misconduct of U.S. government I contend that the health issue state of the prisons and this misconduct that we learned about today would be what a judge in britain would use as their basis for denying the extradition request but again we have no idea what's going to happen we won't hear about that right away but I just want to say the defense have put on a tremendous case from my point of view and laying out this entire story in the words of their witnesses all the aspects of the case the prosecution for their part I think was dealt a very weak hand and they've done pretty well with that weekend it's caused them to act in kind of bullying ways towards the witnesses they are cross-examining but that's often seen in the american courtroom apparently not so much in the british one but they with what they would dealt with they worked very hard and were extremely well prepared too so we're moving to the end of this hearing and that will be tomorrow with a couple more witnesses and then it's over until november 16 when the closing organs will be had and we're fearful that it's only going to be written it seems like the defense agreed to that but we never heard the rates actually pronounced that but it's being reported everywhere else we're holding out hope that we'll get an oral argument on that day or at least get to see the written statements and then beyond the holidays rates will come back in general and make a decision but i don't think they've left anything on the table they are the they have given it everything they've had both sides and it's been an extremely extremely interesting and historic hearing that should have gotten a lot more media attention because all of these issues that have been involved here freedom of the press being one of the crucial central ones here publishing a publishing sorry prosecuting a publisher for publishing never before done under the espionage act of the united states i'm going to leave you with that again if you could support us please go to patreon.com backslash cn live until tomorrow for what appears to be the final day of testimony this is joeloria for cn live