 Who is not massacring civilians or torturing everybody? And people from genocide in the head, they received 35 or 45 years. Free! Get in the south! Free! Free! Get in the south! Free! Get in the south! This is Radio Free Assange. We're discussing here whether Assange or someone else has done something wrong or not. But what about the wall crimes? We are living in a time when our own wall crimes are no longer... Julian and I would like to thank everyone for their kindness. The kindness that has been shown over the past few weeks. Every action, every show of support means so much for us. And we would like to thank you all for helping us continue this fight. It's a fight for Julian's life, a fight for press freedom and a fight for the truth. Over the past four weeks, the true nature of this prosecution has come to light. Julian is being punished for performing a public service that we have all benefited from. He is in prison because he informed you of actual crimes and atrocities being committed by a foreign power. That foreign power has ripped away his freedom and has torn our family apart. That power wants to put him in in communicado detention in the deepest, darkest hole of its prison system for the rest of his life. Julian faces a 175-year prison sentence. Most of the charges relate to simply receiving and possessing government documents. Under Oase, the prosecution concedes that it has no evidence that a single person has ever come to physical harm because of these publications. Julian is not a US citizen. He has never lived there. He did not sign an Oase to the US government. He should not be sent there. Julian's duty is to the public to publish evidence of wrongdoing. And that's what he did. The US administration's prosecution is trying to make normal journalistic activities which are entirely legal in this jurisdiction, an extraditable offence. If he's sent to the United States, Julian will not be able to argue the public interest of his publications because there is no public interest defense. And because he is not a US citizen, the US says that he does not have free speech protections. The US administration will not stop with him. The US says that it can put any journalists anywhere in the world on trial in the US if it doesn't like what they are publishing. The US administration is exploiting the lopsidedness of the US-UK Extradition Treaty to deny justice to the family of Harry Dunn and to force cruelty and injustice on ours. This case is already chilling press freedom. It is a frontal assault on journalism, on the public's right to know and our ability to hold governments domestic and foreign to account. Terrible crimes were committed in Iraq and Afghanistan and terrible crimes were committed at Guantanamo Bay. The perpetrators of those crimes, they're not in prison, but Julian is. Julian is a publisher. Julian is also a son. He's a friend. He's my fiance. And a father. Our children need their father. Julian needs his freedom. And our democracy needs a free press. Thank you. Julian and I would like to thank everyone for their kindness, the kindness that has been shown over the past few weeks. Every action, every show of support means so much for us. And we would like to thank you all for helping us continue this fight. It's a fight for Julian's life, a fight for press freedom and a fight for the truth. Over the past four weeks, the true nature of this prosecution has come to light. Julian is being punished for performing a public service that we have all benefited from. He is in prison because he informed you of actual crimes. Let me just say a few words. It is very hard to sum up the feelings after these four weeks in the courtroom. We've heard dozens of witnesses in this courtroom. And those witnesses, journalists, academics, intellectuals, they've exposed lies, all the lies that have been presented in the case against Julian Assange. There was no hacking. There was no conspiracy. There was no harm. And when we peeled off the layers and layers of lies that have been presented, we are left with the truth. And that truth has been presented in this court in a very bleak manner. And the truth is, this is journalism on trial. This is the state and the future of journalism that we were hearing witnesses talk about here. But the other horrors, horrible truths that were exposed as well were the truth exposed by WikiLeaks, which we again heard of, the assassinations of innocent civilians, the torture, the illegality in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in Quantanamo. Those truths were exposed here. I ask you, would you not agree that this is not a trial of Julian Assange? In essence, it was a trial of our time and our civilization. Because we heard about all these horrible incidents that happened on our wards and in our name, changed the past. But we need the truth about the past. But we can change the fate of Julian Assange. And after all these four weeks, there should be no doubt that there's only one thing that has to happen as an outcome of these proceedings. If Julian Assange is exudated, it will mean darkness for us all. It cannot happen. We must take a stand. There can only be one outcome, no extradition. Well said, Julian Assange. Approaching the 11th year of Julian's arbitrary detention. One and a half years under house arrest. Seven and a half years locked in a room in the Ecuadorian Embassy. And moving to a year and a half in the Belmarsh maximum security prison is a crime. But also like you to consider the result of leaks and the publication of war crimes. So in 2006, American soldiers in Iraq murdered an entire family. A mother, a father, children, uncle, aunties, grandmother. Looking at their crime, they thought of a way out. So they pulled in an airstrike and destroyed what was left of the children. The oil, the glitter. This was released in the cables that gave enough insight and courage to the Iraqi government to refuse to renew the status of forces agreement. In other words, a publication of WikiLeaks and Julian stopped a war. So I'd like you to remember that also like you to keep forever in mind that these heinous deeds can be turned just as easily against us. So if we succeed in carrying upon our shoulders and using our strength to free Julian, it brings that freedom to us and it prevents him. It gives us the status of strength to resist the murderous crimes of a rogue state and its vassals. And from Julian, when I speak to him on the phone, he said, asks me to give thanks to the journalists and the supporters, so from the heart. The supporters without borders has attempted to carry out our job as professional NGO observers at these proceedings the past four weeks. We have been unable to do so because this judge has decided not to accept, not to accommodate the role of NGO observers as any different to the public. We have gained access to these proceedings only by fighting our way into court each day with the support of an entire network of activists. This is not how we are accustomed to doing our jobs in any country and I personally have not experienced this in monitoring any case anywhere. What we have witnessed is concerning. We have documented concerns with regard to Mr. Assange's right to a fair trial. We have serious concerns about open justice and we retain our concerns about the substance of the case, which we do believe to be politically motivated, as was evidenced quite aptly over the past four weeks. We maintain that Mr. Assange has been targeted for his contributions to public interest reporting and that this case will have historical implications for journalism, for press freedom. That is what is at stake. So it's not just the violation of Mr. Assange's rights, although that is of utmost concern as well. It is a violation of the public's right to information. The public had a right to know what was happening in these proceedings and very few have been able to gain access. The public also had a right to the information that was published as a result of the leaked information. So that is what I want to leave here to really hammer home for those who are still skeptical about aspects of this case who may have decided that they believe one thing or the other about Mr. Assange is that it is the implications for the public, to the public's right to information for the future of public interest reporting in this country, in the United States and internationally. So at Reporters of Our Borders we call again for the charges against Mr. Assange to be dropped for him to be released and certainly not extradited to the United States. We believe that he should be released unconditionally but we have also heard ample evidence of humanitarian basis for his release as well. We have said that this could be a matter of life or death and that cannot be overlooked either in these proceedings. So we will stick with it. We will continue to press support to reconsider its policy for future hearings because this is quite frankly unacceptable and we will continue to do our job to the best of our ability. So I just want to thank the Member of Parliament for Poplar and Landhouse in East London and from my limited observations of the hearing today I thought that the hearing was really rushed and I'm not sure why that might be is it because there's a political motivation behind the case. Last week in government we saw the second reading of the overseas operations bill get passed and that is a signal and a sign that we are seeing torture abroad and not held to account and press freedom be important and that's what Julian has been working on for the last 10 years but what's really important as well is that everybody deserves the right to a fair hearing and Julian does not have access to his legal team as much as he needs to. He's in solitary custody and may be have access to his legal team perhaps for an hour every fortnight and that's not acceptable and he needs access to his legal support and we need to know about war crimes abroad so that we can actually reflect on ourselves as a culture. Now that's what we've learnt in the last 10 years. We've learnt about our activities abroad. We've learnt about what shouldn't be happening abroad. We've learnt about torture that should never have happened and in order to really really change that we need to ensure that there is free press reporting and that's why this case is so important and you know I want to extend my solidarity to the friends and family of Julian who are many of whom I've met today in their struggle and their journey ahead. Thank you. Julian and I would like to thank everyone for their kindness. The kindness that has been shown over the past few weeks. Action, every show of support means so much for us and we would like to thank you all for helping us continue this fight. It's a fight for Julian's life, a fight for press freedom and a fight for the truth. Over the past four weeks the true nature of this prosecution has come to light. Julian is being punished for performing a public service that we have all benefited from. He is in prison because he informed you of actual crimes and atrocities being committed by a foreign power. That foreign power has ripped away his freedom and has torn our family apart. That power wants to put him in communicado detention in the deepest, darkest hole of its prison system for the rest of his life. Julian faces 175 year prison sentence. Most of the charges relate to simply receiving and possessing government documents. Under oaths the prosecution concedes that it has no evidence that a single person has ever come to physical harm because of these publications. Julian is not a US citizen. He has never lived there. He did not sign an oath to the US government. He should not be sent there. Julian's duty is to the public, to publish evidence of wrongdoing. And that's what he did. The US administration's prosecution is trying to make normal journalistic activities which are entirely legal in this jurisdiction, an extraditable offence. If he's sent to the United States, Julian will not be able to argue the public interest of his publications because there is no public interest defense. And because he is not a US citizen, the US says that he does not have free speech protections. The US administration will not stop with him. The US says that it can put any journalists anywhere in the world on trial in the US if it doesn't like what they are publishing. The US administration is exploiting the lopsidedness of the US-UK Extradition Treaty to deny justice to the family of Harry Dunn and to force cruelty and injustice on ours. This case is already chilling press freedom. It is a frontal assault on journalism, on the public's right to know and our ability to hold governments, domestic and foreign, to account. Terrible crimes were committed in Iraq and Afghanistan and terrible crimes were committed at Guantanamo Bay. The perpetrators of those crimes, they're not in prison, but Julian is. Julian is a publisher. Julian is also a son. He's a friend. He's my fiance. And a father. Our children need their father. Julian needs his freedom. And our democracy needs a free press. Thank you. Let me just say a few words. It is very hard to sum up the feelings after these four weeks in the courtroom. We've heard dozens of witnesses in this courtroom. And those witnesses, journalists, academics, intellectuals, they've exposed lies. All the lies that have been presented in the case against Julian's arms. There was no hacking. There was no conspiracy. There was no harm. And when we peeled off the layers and layers of lies that have been presented, we are left with the truth. And that truth has been presented in this court in a very bleak manner. The truth is, this is journalism on trial. This is the state and the future of journalism that we were hearing witnesses talk about here. But the other horrors, horrible truths that were exposed as well, were the truth exposed by WikiLeaks, which we again heard of. The assassinations of innocent civilians, the torture, the illegality in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in Quantanamo. Those truths were exposed here. I ask you, would you not agree that this is not a trial of Julian Assange? In essence, it was a trial of our time and our civilization. Because we heard about all these horrible incidents that happened on our watch and in our name, changed the past. But we need the truth about the past. But we can't change the fate of Julian Assange. And after all these four weeks, there should be no doubt that there's only one thing that has to happen as an outcome of these proceedings. If Julian Assange is extradited, it will mean darkness for us all. It cannot happen. We must take a stand. There can only be one outcome, no extradition. We are approaching the 11th year of Julian's arbitrary detention. One and a half years under house arrest. Seven and a half years locked in a room in the Ecuadorian embassy. And moving to a year and a half in the Belmarsh maximum security prison is a crime. But also I'd like you to consider the result of leaks and the publication of war crimes. So in 2006, American soldiers in Iraq murdered an entire family. A mother, father, children, un-Pasadist grandmother. Looking at their crime, they thought of a way out. So they called in an airstrike and destroyed what was left of the children. All of them, obliterated. This was released in the cables. It gave enough insight and courage to the Iraqi government to use to renew the status of forces agreement. In other words, a publication of WikiLeaks and Julian stopped a war. So I'd like you to remember that. I'd also like you to keep forever in mind. Does Diego go away only? Is this the only way or not? This is the sound camera. And I point at everyone that's not speaking. Can you talk a little bit, quarters? Do we need to be nice or not? We're going to hand these back and forth. How close does one hold them? You don't need to close it very close. Can it be held here? At the end, right at the center. There's not another room's free. So I'll have to go sit in an office somewhere. And then just put these here. Room, yeah. I guess so. Do you have the headphones, John? Yeah. Good morning. We're going to sit down here and discuss the outcome of the last four weeks in Old Bailey in the Assange case. It has been quite an interesting procedure in many ways. Let me start with you, John. Can you give me your idea of the highlights? Well, for me, I think really this was about setting the historical record straight because for so many years I think a lot of myths have circulated and been put about, in fact, by the US government about WikiLeaks and about allegations of harm relating to the publications. And so for me, it was important to see the evidence that came through where there is no evidence that anyone was harmed, to have expert evidence and evidence from journalists who work with WikiLeaks about the responsibility of publication, about the reduction processes that were undertaken, about the ways in which WikiLeaks engaged in reduction process with media partners. I also think there was interesting expert evidence which affirmed what we've been saying for years about the impacts that this case will have on the First Amendment in the United States. This case is not, as the US government tried to continually put across both in court and outside of court through government and administration officials. This is not about putting people's lives at risk. This is about obtaining, receiving and possessing and communicating classified information. And as we heard from the Freedom of the Press Foundation from Trevor Tim, this will be the end of national security journalism. This indictment means the end of national security journalism. I also thought that Daniel Ellsberg's testimony was really powerful as a lauded whistleblower with the Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War. I thought he spoke so powerfully about the importance of unauthorized disclosures and informing the public, but also the wrongdoing in this case, the abusive process in this case, spying on us as lawyers, spying on Julian and his medical meetings. This was sufficient abuse in Daniel Ellsberg's case to have the entire case thrown out with prejudice, and yet in Julian's case so much more has happened, and yet still here we are. And so I thought that was really interesting. Correct. You thought... What was interesting in me was the strange dichotomy in the American government position where they seem to change tack part of the way through the hearing. And they started off by claiming that this was only about specific publication where harm had come to informants. Of course we heard that no harm had come to informants. But then a change came really when clear dobbin for the U.S. government was cross-examining a colleague Shankman when suddenly they started arguing absolutely plainly and directly that there is no First Amendment protection for publication of classified information. And they actually stated, in the exact words, they said that any journalist who publishes classified information can be liable for prosecution under the Espionage Act. And that was extraordinary because it stripped the veil of this kind of cover that they'd been building in the argument. And suddenly it was there for everyone to see. And it's quite extraordinary to me that more of the media didn't pick up on that moment and didn't pick up on the argument they were making because they then went on to repeat that and that became the foundation of the case really for the rest of the trials. And they argued explicitly that the Pentagon paper's judgment did not preclude and that the New York Times could have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act. So this was a very blatant attempt to undermine the entire First Amendment. And it was fascinating to see the nakedness, if you like, of that argument in the way they were using it. And that, for me, was the most striking. I mean, it's one of, you know, a huge number of points, but for me, that was the most... That they could cite because it's precedent setting. They couldn't actually say, as we've seen in this case, we can roll this out here. I mean, there was, of course, a lot of details and a lot of the details were lost to the journalists who were actually reporting on it. I think one very interesting testimony was from Ellis, a computer expert who actually tore two pieces, this allegation of conspiracy to hack. And, you know, after going through... It's a very technical and detailed sort of dissection of what happened. But, you know, after that testimony, there is actually no evidence. There's no foundation for the allegation. But still we are reading in the papers that he is being indicted for hacking into Pentagon computers. That's extraordinary. I mean, there was nothing left, actually, after that. It totally ruined that argument. And that's a very important point, even though it's a, well, let's call it the minor point in the whole scheme of things. But it could have opened up, you know, so many dangerous avenues for future prosecutions. What do you think, Johanna? Well, you know, for an inexperienced layperson to sit in the court and listen to evidence from the prosecutor that people then under Sam's special administrative measures could communicate with each other, the testimony and the actuality is that men or people are behind steel doors and they have to bellow and shout and scream to communicate with somebody, anybody out there who bellows and shouts and screams back. And some of the people who've been there so long, they are maddened, you know, the abomination of desolation has ruined them as people. And so the fissures in their mind cause them to howl. So you have this hellish cacophony that rattles down the hallways of the jail as some people who retain some humanity attempt to communicate with another human being. Others who are partially destroyed howl out and try and reach for some sucker from another human being. It is just, and this, that's the actuality and that happens so much with, I'll give you one further example. I hope you've had your morning tea. Claire Dobbin, who is the junior for the prosecution, she was speaking of a man named Abu Hamza who has been for a long while in solitary confinement under Sam's. She said, as a trivial picadillo, she said, well, he insisted on having his toenails cut before he went to court. Abu Hamza has no arms. I mean, can you imagine a person altering that as defense, as somehow defense of Julian Assange being put under Sam's in a howling cacophony of destroyed and partially destroyed human beings as comfortable? Anyway, that was the general overall impression of the prosecution. A desperation. As they don't have a case, they can only use power. That's all. They don't have a case. What do you think, Joseph, about the press coverage of the trial? I mean, do you feel those are growing interest and actually the journalists who understand the implication for their environment? I think there is. I think they understand that it's the implications for themselves that this case following on from the first amendment protection puts every journalist everywhere in the world at risk if they publish something about a country that doesn't like what they publish. And the prosecution went so far as their argument goes so far as to say even reading stuff in the Guardian or the New York Times that is classified is tantamount to you are liable in the same way. I wanted to follow on from what John was saying about sans. And we heard from expert doctors about... Well, we heard from wardens who had experienced prisoners under sans and then we heard from expert doctors about the kind of treatment that he would get. And the striking thing I found was for the expert medical witnesses on the prosecution who were arguing that it wouldn't be so bad. You know, for a doctor who's part of the Hippocratic oath is first do no harm to even be able to stand up and give testimony knowing full well that someone's treatment will be worse than what it is currently. In other words, knowing full well that their testimony can help to doing harm. I find peculiar and bizarre. Jennifer, you're an experienced lawyer. What about the atmosphere in the courtroom and actually the arguments that the procedure was essentially a violation of Julian's rights? There were a lot of issues against Julian and his interests quite often in the proceeding on the last day. To sum it up, was it unfair in essence? Well, I think there were a number of issues that raised real procedural concerns about this case. And the first and foremost is, of course, the second superseding indictment. As we heard on the opening day of the hearing, this is unprecedented for a case of this complexity that has been going on for this long for the United States to serve him and arrest him under a second superseding indictment. That's now the third indictment that we've seen since he was arrested. On the day that a hearing is supposed to take place where evidence has been closed, it's the US trying to shift the goalposts, as we say in Australia. So shifting and changing their case in a way which makes it incredibly difficult for him to be able to defend himself. And we saw that play out because, in fact, not only are there new allegations, when the second superseding indictment came in, the United States' first position was, well, this doesn't make any difference to the case. Then they claimed, well, actually, this could form the basis of new allegations of criminality for which he could be prosecuted once returned to the United States. We were refused to adjourn on the basis that the position had changed and we needed more time to prepare evidence. And then on the last day of the hearing, a witness statement was submitted from Gareth Pierce, Julian's solicitor, setting out the issues with the new allegations in the second superseding indictment and why we have not had the time or the ability to properly be able to respond to them and the judge refused to admit that evidence. Now, that raises real concerns. And I think the second issue for me, which I think all of you saw play out in court and was a real impediment to our ability to communicate, is the fact that Julian was required to sit in that glass box. So it was impossible for us to take confidential instructions from him. And we saw this argued in February 1st, we made an application as a defence team to have him released from the box so that he could sit next to counsel to be able to give confidential instructions quietly by a note as the evidence and arguments rolling out. And the prosecution didn't oppose it, but the judge refused. Now, you saw during the hearing, because he was sat behind the legal teams, it took often people having to wave and catch the lawyer's attention before anyone would turn around to be able to talk to him. And even for me, I'm not tall enough to be able to actually speak to him in the box because it's so high. And he has to whisper to us in ways that the prosecution sitting next to us could absolutely hear what he was saying. And so from that point of view, I think a lot of Americans find this just shocking, because even if you have committed a violent crime in the United States and you're in custody, you are released from the defense counseling court precisely because you need to be able to give instructions. Julian is a nonviolent prisoner. He should have been allowed to sit with us. Yeah, it's shocking. Craig, you can in the gallery, you can write every day, not often not very kind words about the judge and the opposition or the prosecution. Your thoughts on the procedure? I mean, it's been very difficult to sit there and believe you are part of a generally neutral procedure. And it's not only a whole succession of rulings, all of which went against the defense, of which obviously the most important was the refusal to adjourn to allow time to prepare to fight the second superseding indictment. But there were just a host of them. I think there were four rulings just yesterday. All of which went against the defense. But it's also body language. I'm quite sure from the transcript you can add up the number of times that prosecution counsel were ever interrupted during cross-examination compared to the number of times that the defense counsel were interrupted during cross-examination. And I must say, I thought that the prosecution counsel were very close to or over the line in their harassing or intimidation of witnesses on occasion. I know the adversarial system does lend itself to aggression, but I think some of it really went rather far. They're asking of repetitive, sarcastic questioning, particularly repetitive questioning, where they were allowed to ask the same thing three times running in order to indicate dissatisfaction with the answer. No, I think the conduct of the trial was difficult to sit through. I'd also like to bring up a couple more points on the procedural side. The first one was the basic one, which we're left with ever since the hearings back in February, which is that the extradition treaty of clause 4 cannot be extradited for political offence, and this plainly is a political offence. And the argument that the 2003 law doesn't contain that provision and therefore the 2007 treaty cannot contain that provision is a very, very strange argument given that the 2003 law is an enabling act on which the 2007 treaty depends, not the other way around. So that fundamental argument, I don't know if we're going through this trial in the first place, but this extradition process in the first place remains. And everyone, of course, yesterday was a quite stunning admission by the US government that the Julian's legal files, which had been in the Ecuadorian embassy and which were clearly marked as legally privileged, were given to the American authorities after being confiscated by Ecuador. And that in itself, in the case of the Ellsberg precedent, that in itself should lead the case to collapse. And it astonishes me that the judge seems to take all that extraordinarily lightly. And I just found that amazing that in the face of these extreme procedural irregularities, like the fact that the prosecuting government is spying on and stealing the legal files of the person being prosecuted, that the case isn't actually simply halted and dismissed because that's what should happen. It was extraordinary to hear the witness statements from the Spanish anonymous two witnesses from Spain who worked for the security company, the embassy. And I mean, we were working with Julian in the embassy. Of course, all the time we knew and we suspected that there was surveillance and therefore we had to be careful. But actually, I was surprised at the details and how far they were willing to go. I mean, there was discussion about kidnapping and poisoning. Leaving the door open specifically so that somebody could come into the embassy, leaving it unlocked. Going so far as to put stickers on the windows so that the U.S. could use directional laser microphones in order to listen into every room in the embassy. And even the diplomats didn't even know about that. It's not only spying on an individual who's been prosecuted, but also an entire diplomatic corps. It's extraordinary. I mean, it was the surprising and the extent they were willing to go and actually these technical details to put a sticker on the window and especially in Julian's private quarters to magnify the vibrations so you had the laser-guided microphones could pick up the vibrations. I mean, it's just extraordinary. Did you, what did the surprise mean? Well, I mean, as you said, we were very alert when we were in the embassy with Julian having legal meetings that we were likely to be listened to. And we tried to take measures to protect the most sensitive information because of our concerns about that. But as we've seen reported, the reports in the past few days, people were saying it reads like a spy novel. And it does, but it's real. And it has very real consequences for his ability to have a fair trial. This is someone who was being spied upon including our legal meetings. They seized our legal advice to him. They seized legal papers, much of which was relevant to potential US indictment and extradition, potential witnesses, potential defences, vis-a-vis not just Julian, but WikiLeaks staff. All of this was ultimately seized and given to the United States. Now, I don't understand how anyone can have a fair trial in circumstances where his legal meetings have not, he is not benefited from legal privilege. I've been spied on myself. My colleague, Balthazar Garçon, his office was broken into. He was physically trailed. You know, these are all incidents which ought to result in the case being thrown out. As Daniel Ellsberg said, there was less abuse in his case and his case was shut down. But that this case continues. And it's not just the spying, the shifting nature of the indictment, the political interference from the Trump administration, the clear political motivation in bringing this case. I mean, we heard the fact that, you know, the judge was even asking questions about whether the US election would require us to submit further evidence. And that in and of itself demonstrates how political this case is. So... It is extraordinary. John, I mean, what it feel like to see into the witness the prosecution who basically was trying to undermine the testimony of those doctors who talked about the depression that Julian suffered from and basically, you know, under oath saying that he was making it up after what? Two meetings. It was extraordinarily biased in the way it was presented as well. I didn't much... I didn't much like listening to that, although I knew it all beforehand. I don't really like cynicism in psychiatrists and doctors, although they must go through a lot, but I don't like the stench of cynicism that emanated from Blackwood. I noticed from his... His testimony, he sat in the court just below us, just below Craig and myself, and curious about this man who would do such things, knowing the result. If he didn't know the result, okay, you know, he's just mistaken, but knowing the result that, as I described before, Julian would be sent to a place where the aim is to send you mad. Knowing that result, watching his body language as he squirmed and rubbed his forehead and wrapped his fingers together and squirmed some more and then relaxed a little bit as the caravan moved or not exposing any more of his glib lies. I spoke to Julian that night and he said, I don't much like listening to that. Well, I can understand that profoundly. But you know all of these things, but you don't really... You know, there's... How can I explain this? There's certain things in the psyche that are sacred and they don't much like sunlight. They like soft, dappled light and they grow and they are really the essence of us. You know, that their unique individuality and it's very, very special. And it's only in really private circumstance can you reveal them. I think casually we call it pillow talk or the confession, the confessional. And we... I think it was Goethe who said that the confessional or all confession should never have been taken from people. He used the word man, but nowadays we use the word people. So that was, you know, to get back to the point. No, it was not comfortable and I have profound sympathy for Julian to have to see those rolled out in a court full of people, these little treasures and indications of depth and width and breadth of character. Thank you. Yes, I mean, where do we go from here, Jan? I mean, the judge will hand down her decision on January 4th and then what? Well, there's obviously the potential to seek permission to appeal depending on the outcome of her decision and we've certainly indicated that we will be appealing if the outcome is in order for extradition. So the appeal process in this country in respect of a US extradition case can take years and we saw that with the Lori Love case. He was ultimately successful, but it was a long, hard fight over a number of years. So the judgment on the 4th of January is really just the next step and what will be unfortunately a long process and it was, you know, it's sad to me to see Julian have to go back to Belmarsh and we'll be spending Christmas in prison because this process continues. How long can the government keep him on remand? I mean, the membership limit, he's an innocent man. I mean, there are guidelines. I read somewhere 180 days. It has to be extended because of COVID, but he's already been now for a year on remand and it's just continuing. It's disappointing that because of the sentence that was handed down and the sentencing remarks of the judge in respect of his bail breach in seeking asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. Of course, we put a lot of evidence before the court saying that he was trying to protect himself from the very outcome which he now faces and that he had justification in doing so, but he received one of the most serious sentence for reaching bail in this country and so the judge has refused bail already and it remains to be seen whether any future bail application would be successful. But in any other case, someone facing this kind of extradition case would be on bail and it would make a world of difference in terms of our ability to prepare because as we were saying, I hadn't seen Julian for six months until the morning of the hearing. He hadn't even seen the written submissions of the United States or our written submissions in response prior to turning up that morning because we couldn't go to see him in Belmarsh and the post took too long so it didn't reach him and that's the difficulty we're having. Capturing the odd moment with him here and there when, you know, I think you all saw the breaks in the hearing where our defence team is rushing down to the cells to get five minutes with him to try to take his instructions when he hasn't even seen the papers. It's impossible. It's really impossible. Craig, we heard yesterday to talk about historical examples. We've been rolling back to the Nixon era and yesterday in a witness testimony that was referenced to the Dreyfus of here a hundred plus years ago. Is the Assange case our Dreyfus of here of our time? I think it's certainly a historical case which will be referenced in future and I think it's the culmination in many ways of an attack on civil liberties which I don't think it would... I wouldn't say it was begun by the 9-11 attacks like it begun a bit before that and was given an impetus after 9-11 by the war on terror and it gave an excuse for clampdowns on civil liberties by government and of course we saw it extend to state use of torture, to extraordinary rendition, to a whole host of abuses and we have to see that as a part of this same process. I think we've been living through a rather dark period and this attack on media freedom is part of that as well and of course we here are all on the side that's fighting to roll back and improve civil liberties again and get increased respect for human rights so the countries that used to be the international champions of human rights have become some of the most high-profile abusers in recent years and that's been very, very difficult and it's not a battle we're necessarily winning but it's a battle we have to continue to fight and Julian's cause and Julian's release is a kind of totemic part of that. I also wanted to just say, picking up on Craig's point that I think it was really important that there was so much evidence put before the court about the impact of WikiLeaks' disclosures in particular in seeking human rights accountability which Julian is in prison and yet those who are responsible for the human rights abuses that WikiLeaks revealed are not and that says so much. We heard evidence from Carly Del Massery who gave evidence at risk to himself to talk about the importance of WikiLeaks' disclosures and demonstrating the way that the United States put pressure on Germany not to prosecute those who had been responsible for his extraordinary rendition and torture and that material was essential evidence in his successful European Court of Human Rights claim. We heard evidence from Clive Stafford Smith about the impact of WikiLeaks' disclosures and their use in seeking accountability in respect of Guantanamo detainees in respect of US drone strikes in Pakistan. These are such, as a human rights lawyer these are such important disclosures in terms of holding powerful governments to account with respect to human rights and yet the person responsible for giving this information and ensuring the public got this information is in prison and not just that the ability of anybody else to do what he did is at risk and that is so problematic. I thought one of the most striking things that was said in court was during the cross-examination of Clive Stafford Smith when Mark Summers QC asked him about the new sanctions on the International Criminal Court from the United States and Clive explained that anyone participating in the accountability efforts will face US sanction including any of us representing WikiLeaks and facilitating WikiLeaks' ability to publish given that that material is going to be used at the ICC and that is a remarkable we are in a remarkable situation and this case is reflective of that remarkable situation. So the fight will continue. Yeah, the fight will continue It's nice to see the support amongst the press I do want to highlight one thing that I've seen which I find to be quite insidious and I noticed in from the few detracting press that have come back they said it in the interview with Stella but the prosecution say he won't face 175 years he'll only face six that is a very effective way of making people think this is reasonable and it's not. Somebody who has not done anything wrong who has through his work and publications stopped wars saved countless lives should not be facing a day anywhere under any punitive form. I totally agree. John, you find thoughts? Yes, I just that's a bleak landscape that we've laid out for you here and I would like to just address well, thank the supporters so in this week in these four weeks there's been about 560 vigils and demonstrations around the world that I have noted the support every day outside the court was indefatigable on the last day they would wish to carry Kristen and Stella and myself and Craig and Jen down the street on their shoulders and Joseph and so the vigor and to win of course simplifies things a bit too much but winning we will ride and it's true it's a metaphor but we will ride upon the shoulders of the supporters to victory and that victory is just the simplest thing of Julian coming home and having playing with his kids and being welcomed by his friends looking in the court it's an extraordinary thing you know looking from the gallery down to Julian who's separated in this glass box all of his friends and lovers surround him so there so that's really heartening for me anyway because he is in the embrace of his friends so it's while we've described the bleak landscape the momentum and volume of people who will ensure Julian's freedom is immense don't underwrite it for a moment correct final thoughts yeah I'm I'm actually optimistic I'm not terrifically optimistic about becoming judgement I'm very optimistic if we have to go to appeal and I'm also fairly optimistic that we may be able to get Julian out on bail pending an appeal once to sing gets in front of more senior judges I haven't totally given up hope of the verdict going our way in January either and I'm also looking forward to seeing you know what Julian does once he's a free man and able to do great things again one thing that has been annoying throughout this last few weeks has been the social media suppression of people writing and tweeting and putting Facebook posts about Julian but there's been no doubt at all that the social media gatekeepers like Facebook and Twitter and even Google to some extent I think have been suppressing news about Julian and suppressing support for Julian and one of the things I'm quite sure he will put his mind to once he comes out is what we do about the internet having been now hampered by corporate gatekeepers to the extent that it's not become the key channel of information for what it was going to do these are the kind of issues looking forward I'd like to think about what Julian is going to do next not just on great things that's achieved in the past I totally agree with you at the time when actually we do need him desperately in his work and that is the reason why he's fighting now for his life before we go well look I think it's been said this case is so important in terms of what it means for journalism and not just for Julian but for all British journalists irrespective of the public interest of these disclosures the sad fact is that despite all of the evidence of WikiLeaks revealing human rights abuse despite the public interest of these disclosures there is no public interest defence in the United States under the Espionage Act and that is a dangerous dangerous position to put any journalist in and as we heard the prosecution is absolutely seeking to set a precedent by which journalists will face prosecution under the Espionage Act and I just cannot say strongly enough why this is an important case for journalists to be getting behind thank you John and thank you all for joining me here the fight will continue thanks to all the supporters keep supporting us and spread the word thank you