 Welcome to CN Live, season 5, episode 11, Assange in the DC-6. Six members of the Australian Parliament have just completed two days in Washington DC, armed with a bipartisan agenda and the backing of an entire nation, as they tried to convince congressmen and state and justice department officials that the American pursuit of the Australian publisher, Julian Assange, is wrong and must be stopped. The cross-party delegation lobbied for Assange's release ahead of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's state visit to the White House at the end of October, where it is expected that Assange will be raised. The MPs who traveled to Washington were former National Party Leader Barnaby Joyce, Liberal Senator Alex Antik, Labor MP Tony Zappia, Independent MP Dr. Monique Ryan, and Greens Senators Peter Wish-Wilson and David Shubridge. We spoke with Senator Shubridge earlier today from Washington. David, thanks for joining us. I live in the Washing Area, but I happen to be in Sydney right now, so sorry we couldn't be with you at the Capitol or at the DOJ. I know you can't speak specifically about who you met and what you actually discussed, but in general, were there any members of Congress or in the administration, whether that be the State or Justice Department or at the White House, that showed you some openness, some understanding of the case? We saw Thomas Mess, you talked on camera, so he seemed to show some sympathy, but your general reception, was it merely just polite that they had to see you, but they weren't really all that interested, or did you see some people in the administration or in Congress who understood this case and who were open to what you had to say in your argument? Well, look, we actually had a really open meetings, a series of open meetings, very positive responses from across Congress. The meetings that we had with the State Department and the Department of Justice were more on your traditional meetings. I thought they were very productive meetings. We made it very clear the broad political consensus in the Australian Parliament and the Australian people to bring Julian Assange home, made it clear that the ongoing efforts to extradite him and charge him effectively to the crime of being a journalist was damaging to our bilateral relationships, and I think they were productive meetings. But when we met with members of Congress, whether they were in the Senate or senators or Congress people, I've got to say we had a very, very positive reception. There were members of Congress from both the left and the right who were engaged in the issue, understood the very fundamental principles, the First Amendment principles, the concept of comedy between our two countries, the threat to journalism more broadly. And that was both from the left and the right. And I've got to say we've had meeting after meeting after meeting, our delegation of six MPs and senators from the Australian Parliament. And without exception, we had strong engagement on the issue and multiple commitments to take the cause on in Congress and the Senate. Did you go to the White House today? No. The things yesterday were with the State Department and with the Department of Justice. We met as well with the Australian Embassy and I think we got an indication of strong support from the Ambassador, a former Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. I was personally impressed by his commitment to take on the project, obviously, with the direction of Prime Minister Albanese, who has said very clearly that this has gone on too long and Julian should be brought home. So I've got to say, each of the meetings we had, there was a strength, a sense of a very strong commitment and a commitment to take the matter further. Cathy. Hi, David. You have a variety of opinions, Senator Wishwilson said it's because you're a delegation that you have different views. And that seems to be the case with Labour's Tony Zapier very clearly asking for the pursuit of Assange's detention and the charges to be dropped by the US. Another Labour MP, Julian Hill, had previously suggested a plea deal would be Assange's best option for not spending the rest of his life in jail. And then there was mention at the end of your press conference outside the DOJ by Senator Wishwilson that the UK could make it easier for everyone by just saying no to his extradition. From your experience, it's clear you all want him to be brought home, but from your experience and in your view, which is the best way to achieve that outcome? And do you have any hint at what might be the best option? Was there any suggestion that as Caroline Kennedy seemed to hint that a plea deal might be a possibility or are they thinking otherwise? Well, it wasn't our job to determine the mechanism to get Julian home with his two kids and his family by Christmas. But all six of us were united in that as the actual goal of our representations and the outcome that needs to happen, whether it's from the US or the UK or a combination of the both. I mean, obviously, the easiest and most straightforward path is for the charges to be dropped and for the extradition proceedings to end and for Julian then to be entitled to come home. One of the other options and it's a matter that we've discussed amongst ourselves in the delegation and we've raised it in our engagement with the administration would be for the UK to not permit the extradition. Ultimately, whatever the courts decide, there's a political decision that needs to be made at a senior ministerial level in the UK about whether or not the extradition can occur. And in many ways, that would solve a problem for everybody. It would definitely solve a problem for Julian if the extradition was denied. And it would remove this quite thorny political issue for some in the democratic camp about Julian Assange, take it out of their hands and resolve the bilateral issue between Australia and the United States. Obviously, it's not our job to determine the mechanism, but it's our job to very clearly state on behalf of 90% of the Australian people what the outcome needs to be and that's Julian at home free to have Christmas with his kids and still. Did you find that the people that you met were well informed or correctly informed about the case? That was one of the complaints that the defence had that the UK courts had been misled. And Barnaby Joyce said that informing yourselves about the case was the first step. So what was your impression of how well informed the US politicians were about the case? Well, there was a spectrum in terms of the amount of knowledge that the politicians had. All of them understood the basic concepts that Julian Assange is being charged for the sharing of information and his work essentially as a journalist and that's the core of the charges against him. They all understood that Chelsea Manning was the official who had actually leaked the information. They understood the history of Chelsea Manning's case and how she's now free to walk the streets of the United States, as she should be, after the commutation of her sentence. They all understood those basic facts, but I think it was important that the delegation also debunked some of the whispering campaign that's been led against Julian Assange, the now very debunked allegations involving Sweden and the alleged rape in Sweden that's been thoroughly debunked and, in fact, just telling people there was no prosecution ever. It was an investigation that was highly politicised. I think getting that information out clearly, reminding them that the US legal system has looked at whether or not any harm accrued from the leaking of information and has comprehensively found that no harm could be identified to any US military or government official, apart from the harm of being embarrassed about the truth. I think getting that information out, but I think one of the most critical pieces of fresh information was just how United Australia is on this and the diversity in our delegation was, I think, really critical to getting that message across. Senator, thank you again for being with us. Was there any discussion, an idea of a plea come up anywhere in your discussions? And secondly, did you think you have prepared the groundwork for the prime minister when he goes next month? And how far should he go in terms of using the leverage that Australia has, in particular in the security arrangements that have big news here and there's a lot of opposition inside Australia to it. So he has to understand that how much, how far could he and should he go in terms of using the leverage Australia has? I think it was important that we came at this moment in time, not only as a critical in terms of the UK extradition proceedings that literally could wind up within days or weeks and we could see Julian potentially coming to the United States, but it's very much in the shadow of the upcoming state visit by Prime Minister Albanese on the 26th of October. And I can tell you now that multiple members of Congress, when they heard that and they heard about the likely impact that ongoing questioning about the Assange matter will have to that state visit, there is picked up, they realized that there's a moment in history here. And I think that that has really forged a commitment, I hope, for broad action across the aisle here in Washington to support the broad action across the aisle in Canberra and get Julian home to his kids and his wife by Christmas. And how much leverage should the Prime Minister use, you think, in his meeting with the president? Well, we're talking about the freedom of an Australian citizen, Australian citizen who's been persecuted for the crime of being a journalist. Of course, it should be front and center of the meeting. It should be an issue. It's a major bilateral irritant and it needs to be resolved. Well, the last, quickly last one, but Biden would not want this during a presidential campaign, this trial. Do you think that they could stretch this out for 14 more months for a decision in Britain? So it won't happen during a presidential campaign? Well, well, this could happen in days. Julian could be in the United States in days or weeks. This could be a first amendment trial with most of the media stacked up against the Biden administration in the shadow of the US election campaign. That would be a disastrous outcome for the Biden administration. I can tell you it's part of the representations we made. I am sorry, I have to go. But thank you very, very much, Senator Shubridge, for joining us. Bye bye. Thank you, David. Thank you. Bye. Well, Kathy, that was Senator David Shubridge, who kindly gave us a few minutes. What did you make of his remarks to us? Very concise and very appropriate answers. And what I'm clinging to in the end was the last thing he said that you get the impression it would be better for the Biden administration to clean this up quickly, get it out of the way, get a good outcome. And that's going to get him off to a fantastic start in his campaign. Well, I don't know how fantastic it would be because a lot of Democrats really hate Julian Assange. They blame him for Donald Trump. We've discussed that ad nauseam on this channel and on our news pages. And we've kind of debunked that to use a Biden administration favorite word. So I think that's why I've argued in a piece recently why I asked Shubridge whether he thought they could just delay this. And the US has, I would think, a lot of control about what's going on in Britain in terms of whether they want this case to be decided after the campaign is over. And that would just mean another 12 months. But Shubridge, like many other people are saying, Gabriel Shipton and Stella Assange, that this could happen within days or weeks. He could be on a plane to the US if the European Court of Human Rights can intervene instead. Of course, there's a three. There's a two panel judge, I believe, coming of hearing. It's a 30 minute hearing to decide whether they will actually hear an appeal from Jonas Assange across appeal of the lower court's decision. The first judge said no. So this is an appeal of that decision not to hear the appeal. If it happens, I wonder and I'm going to ask you, Cathy, what do you thought about his answers in regard to the reception that he had? It seems like some members of Congress were informed. Some of them weren't not correctly informed, as you asked him. And really, the Congress members are important, but not that important. The real importance here is what's going on in the Department of Justice. And it would get a great extent also the State Department. You'll know that you'll notice that Australian politicians and American politicians and British politicians that we can intervene in this case. This is a legal matter, only not political, not diplomatic. Well, of course, Anthony Blinken, the top US diplomat, when he was in Australia at the end of July, actually intervened in this and said, there's no way we're going to drop this case. It upset a lot of people in Australia. There was a furious backlash against that, including from some senators in the pro-Essange camp and MPs in the Australian Parliament. And after that, Caroline Kennedy came out and said, oh, we're open to a plea deal. But as we know from Craig Murray, there was no, there's been no discussion of a plea deal right now. So I was wondering what was your impression of what we heard from Shrewbridge about the level of understanding and the openness to hear the arguments that the MPs brought to these people in Washington. Well, of course, Secretary Blinken issued one of the points that David mentioned is having them having debunked about enormous harm being done as a result of WikiLeaks revelations. And of course, we know that Robert Carr had actually led an investigation at the time of the Manning Court Marshal to try and find anybody who had been harmed by WikiLeaks or killed by WikiLeaks revelations. And he couldn't find anyone at all. In fact, in Chelsea Manning's book, Readme.txt, she mentions that they were trying to show as well that what she had revealed harmed national security. And they found two publications, but they they didn't really they didn't really make that point at all. And they had nobody had read it. And the other thing was that, well, it seems that Carr tried to mislead the court by saying the citing a name of somebody who had been killed. Now, this name had been given by the Taliban. But as it turns out, Manning makes it clear that that that name wasn't mentioned at all in the revelation. So that attempted deception had to be withdrawn and we're left with no harm being done whatsoever. So I think that, you know, he did make that point. David Shubridge, that they had spent a lot of time I assume they spent a lot of time informing themselves correctly, which has been a real problem, given all of the misinformation over the last decade and that they also spent time dispelling some of these whispers, these rumors, these lies, essentially, that the revelations and Julian Assange caused harm. Now, just getting back to the first point that you made, I think that it's a bit of a gamble to wait so long until after the 24 elections, 2024 elections. It's a gamble that Julian Assange will last that long. And that he, yeah, because we are told by Stella that his health is continually declining. He had a stroke and doctors for Assange, particularly Doctor Arthur Chesterfield Evans, an Australian doctor but also Dr. Jill Stein, an American doctor has told us that these mini strokes are more often than not a sign that a major one is on the way. I had the impression that the UK was trying to push this through quickly. And I guess that's backed up by appeals being refused to get him off their turf before he has another stroke. So there's that kind of pressure. There's the other pressure that that Stella and the world are not going to shut up about this and the number of people, the 88 percent of Australian citizens, their representatives are not going to shut up about this over the next year and a half. So I just still think that the wisest move would be to to bring this matter to a close, a joyous close with the family being reunited as quickly as possible. And then Biden appears as a good guy and the guy who has admitted that, you know, he said over a decade ago that Julian Assange was a high tech terrorist. Well, you know, that was one of the lines that was being pumped out by so many people, but there were lots of other lines that essentially things that weren't true. It has been shown in the Manning Court Marshal that Assange WikiLeaks had the information dropped on their lap that Manning had already uploaded everything before any alleged chat between her and Assange had taken place. So, yes, Kathy, Biden did say in 2010 on that interview, I meet the press that he's closer to Assange, to a high tech terrorist than to the Pentagon papers, but he also did was part of the administration that decided not to indict Julian Assange. That's very significant. The same principles that he expressed on interview exist now. Nothing has happened in the case. He's charged only with the 2010 leaks, which is what they were talking about back in December 2010. There's been nothing new with you. Now, there have been leaks about the DNC that exposed corruption in the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton campaign. And there was the CIA leaks. And I've argued now for some time that the CIA and the Democratic Party are still really pissed off at Julian Assange and would give Joe Biden a lot of hurt for he decided that he wanted this case to be dropped. He's dealing with the party. He's the head of the party and the CIA. And speaking of the CIA, if they really wanted to make some headway, this group of Australian senators, that's where they needed to go. Down to Langley, because these are the people who are controlling this case. I don't think there's any doubt about that. They seem to control, as we heard Jeffrey Sachse the other day on an interview, that who runs the United States? Well, it's the intelligence services and they want a president who is going to be pliable, hopefully one who completely agrees and is an activist president for intelligence interests, which they sometimes get. But if they get a president who is doesn't know what's going on, like looks like Joe Biden, that's pretty good too. But that's where the essence of this case is in Langley. And of course, they would never get an audience in Langley. I find it interesting. They went to the State Department at all because of this fiction, as I mentioned, that this is not a diplomatic or political case, it's only a legal case. And I did find it interesting, Cathy, that he said that gave the impression that some members of Congress, maybe in the administration, were knowledgeable of the case, although they had a lot of things wrong and they were able to try to argue with them or explain to them what the facts were. But when you heard, I think it was Peter Willson outside of the Department of Justice talk about the Statute of Liberty, or may have been another one, but they did talk about the cap. He mentioned the capital of democracy of the world, democracy. So I think these guys and one woman we haven't heard from, Monique Ryan, have appealed, tried to appeal to this American mythology that they are the democratic center of the world, that they are the beacon of hope, blah, blah, blah. The Statute of Liberty is about liberty for all and freedom and free press. First Amendment doesn't exist. Are there anywhere else? Anything like that enshrined in the Constitution. And I wonder if that's. We didn't ask her about that. But if that would have a better chance of just sticking to that kind of cartoon level explanation, how could you present yourself to the world as being the defenders of all these rights and freedoms when you have a publisher in jail for publishing true information? And this is the basic case. They probably made that to them. And I don't know how receptive American politicians would be, which is why I argue that they may delay this for 14 months, because if they have that trial, that's going to be much harder to to play down the fact that they are a country that's actually acting in a totalitarian way, as Peter W. Wilson said, in putting a publisher in jail, an Australian publisher who worked in London at the time on this case. And he's going to he's going to be in jail in the U.S. on trial. I don't see it happening. So as far as what you said about that, Cathy, there are people who in the Assange camp, including his father, John Shipton, who has said that it's a slow murder, slow motion murder. They're murdering. They're killing my son. There are many people in the Assange camp who believe that they wouldn't mind a British or the Americans if he did die in prison. So I would eliminate that. I don't know if that's true, but it would solve a lot of problems for them. So I don't know whether whether that would be an issue for them in trying to stretch yourself for 14 months. Well, I think another pressure and argument against going that way is that rivals of Joe Biden have already pledged to free Julian Assange. And probably the most important one is Robert Kennedy, Jr. In his currently in his own party. This is really rising to world prominence with world leaders talking about it. Lula from Brazil talked about it in the United Nations General Assembly. And so the noise is getting the volume is getting too loud. American people have got to live with, you know, he can't run a campaign of hate for free speech for 18 months. And just because Julian Assange is in a British prison and not in an American prison, I don't think that's going to make any difference. There's also Marianne Williamson as well. And Rama Ramaswami, I think his name is, is the Republican candidate. Another rival of Biden who has the other thing is that, as you said before, Biden was vice president at a time when the Obama administration did not want to prosecute Julian Assange because of the New York Times problem. That is not going to go away. And you've still got this problem that more and more legacy journalists are becoming and mainstream journalists are becoming aware of that they are next. And then there's other issues about censorship as well. I mean, the First Amendment is really under debate at the moment. It seems to be in crisis with this prosecution of Julian Assange and also about the the this rigid, tight control of of free speech in terms of reporting. Missouri versus Biden case as well, where we see that a court, Fifth Circuit Court actually has upheld an injunction against members of the administration named members, not to communicate with social media companies to tell them to shut down people's accounts. You're absolutely right. That's front and center. There could be impeachment next early next year. Trump will be on trial to do. Will they be able to fit in Julian Assange on trial in the eastern district of Virginia and Alexandria? That's why I think this thing is going to be stretched out. They're not going to let them go and they can't put them on trial, but they can have the British courts decide to hold off on this hearing for a few more months and then to hold off on their decision. But anyway, that's my guess. But others, everybody else is saying it's going to happen imminently. I just don't see unless they want to hear now, but this trial wouldn't begin until next year. That's the thing. He'll show up in court. He'll be arraigned the next day or if it's the weekend the next Monday. And then we won't hear about it for months because they will then enter a process of writing briefs back and forth. Assange's lawyers will put a brief to dismiss this case based on probably First Amendment principles and all the other issues that came up in that cross appeal that the British High Court probably won't let them appeal. Those will could become issues again in the lawyers briefs if Julian winds up in a courtroom in Australia, sorry, in Alexandria, that they will say, look, this is a First Amendment issue. There's a Fifth Amendment issue here as our writer Bruce Affron pointed out that it was not clear it was written in the law that if he published this that he could be prosecuted for this. So that will go back and forth. And that would be happening if he's extradited. Now the trial could begin in the summer of next year, right in the thick of this campaign. Don't see it happening. Kathy, I'm just going to ask you if you have any final words, because then we'll leave it here. Yeah, so maybe it could go that way. The decision might be made to try and stretch it out. It's going to be difficult. Or Biden could decide to run on a campaign of. It's more humane that I mean, I've just watched the. The program with Stella Sange and Chris Hedges about. Belmarsh prison. She's talking about Belmarsh prison and he's talking about the horrendous conditions in U.S. prisons. And one, one thing that Biden as Hedges says, says is that. Judge Baraita, who refused to extradite as such in the first place, recognise the savagery of U.S. prisons. I think that's a whole other issue that needs to be dealt with. You know, you have to ask why prisoners are so tortured. In the United States and why even in Belmarsh, there is, you know, this solitary confinement and the extensive use of solitary confinement. So there's that there's that side of things. And of course, there's also Biden. Also convincing the American people on these principles, on these, they're better half their super ego, if you like, compared to the CIA and in the basement that, you know, this is the image America has of itself. And now it's got to live up to it. And that means protecting the First Amendment. Very good, Kathy, in terms and also in a world that's changing so rapidly, where the rest of the world's finally saying they don't really believe the United States anymore. We saw that when the General Assembly Hall was half empty for President Zelensky's speech. That was a real statement that America's war in Ukraine, in particular, is not believed. And at stake is the US story around the world. That's been believed since the end of Second World War. That's really on trial here as well, even before Julian Assange ever gets here. So I thank you, Kathy Wogan, and we thank again, Senator David Shubrit for joining us from Washington for a few minutes to talk about the delegation of the Australian Parliament that has gone to Washington to lobby for the release of WikiLeaks publisher, Julian Assange, who remains in prison in Belmarsh for the past four years. For CN Live, this is Joe Laurier. Goodbye. If you are a consumer of independent news in the first place you should be going to is Consortium News and please do try to support them when you can. It doesn't have its articles behind a paywall. It's free for everyone. It's one of the best news sites out there. And it's been in the business of independent journalism and adversarial independent journalism for over two decades. I hope that with the public's continuing support of Consortium News, it will continue for a very long time to come. Thank you so much.