 Don't exercise, Hassan. Thank you. So we're back here in London two years after we were here in February of 2020. Christian, this week until the end of this month could be critical. Do you think there's a chance this could be a result of this? I hope it. I hope certainly that this will be the end of it. And I mean it is incredible to think that it's all now for the first time in the power of a politician to end this here on this ground and pretty much tell if she wants to think about her legacy she should think about her legacy as all politicians should do and do the right thing in this case. I mean two years ago, yes, we were entering the courtrooms. Julian has been in the prison for more than three years now. What the court proceedings have basically shown is very clearly the political nature of the case. That is the expose of the judicial process. It's not about the law anymore. So now it's a critical junction. Now it is in the hands of pretty potential to end this and I must be optimistic. When Vanessa Baraitse made her decision, there was some hope obviously that he could be free, but it was political then wasn't as well by the rest of her decision. Well, how did you feel at that time? Well, I was surprised by the decision in the magic court, but I was surprised by the fact that she would only do it on health ground and totally fight with the Americans on the merits of the other points. That was surprising. Now we know the reason because the high court felt that it was easy to dismiss it because of the so-called assurances by the US government. But bear in mind that actually the high court did not change the emphasis on the simple fact that Julian is in a very precarious state, that he is a suicide risk if accepted, but he will not be able to withhold isolation in the cells in Virginia or in supermarkets or any other prison in the US in pre-trial or post-trial detention. So the courts have acknowledged the risk. So it was so surprising to see the high court only on the basis of one piece of paper, so-called assurances that they will treat Julian fairly in the prisoners in the US, especially giving the fact that that document has a clause saying we retain the rights to change our position at any time. So it's nothing but, it's not an assurance at all. So Amnesty International said it's a travesty of justice because what the high court did basically was to sentence man to a possible death according to their own estimate. If you look at the Emeritus of the US document. Pretty much help can end this, but there are still avenues for appeal of course. We call it cross appeal, but it is basically appeal to the high court where you present all the important points that have been exposed and points that have not been discussed in any courtroom here in any details. You know the recent story about that has not been refuted that there was a plot to kill or kidnap Julian here in London etc by the CIA. So, but this will only prolong this misery and enough is enough. The high court didn't dare challenge the condition of American prisons or his health status. They didn't even go there. They just took these assurances. Will they in your view be reluctant to take a cross appeal if it's to come to that? It's the same judges, is that why I understand, right? Yeah, but these judges have not probed into the details of anything except A, Julian's health and B, prison conditions in the United States and the treatment there. So they will have all the other elements, the important elements that were discussed at length in the Magistrate Court, but totally disregarded by the high court because that was not the appeal point. The appeal point was the Americans lost who wanted to, so their job was to convince the high court judges that Julian was not in a poor health and secondly that they could treat him very well and the U.S. prisons were very fair and very cozy. But on the one point the high court did not rule basically alongside the Americans. They did acknowledge the fact that he is at a health risk, asked it for a reason. So the only point that they sort of used in their turning of the decision was this piece of paper called Assurances and it's absolutely extraordinary and I've talked to many lawyers, experienced lawyers, that when the Supreme Court denied to take that point into consideration and basically saying this is not a point of law, that is extraordinary. If you think about it, the anomaly there is over one thing. The party that lost the Magistrate case was allowed to present new things, new evidence, so-called evidence, or these assurances in the appeal process. Usually you're not allowed to do that. Julian's lawyers were not allowed to present the CIA case or the reputation of one of the key witnesses in the case into the appeal process because that's new evidence. You're not supposed to be able to do that. However, the Americans were allowed to hand over the so-called diplomatic assurances and on that basis entirely they overturned the decision. That is a contention for the Supreme Court to decide because this is, we'll set an example in the future and usually in court proceedings, if a new element is presented to an appeal court and the appeal court says, okay, this changes everything. The case is sent back to the Magistrate Court. That is the court that has heard all the evidence over the weeks, not the appeal court. For this case, on the marital one piece of paper, they overturned the decision. Amazing. And the fact that the Supreme Court did not take this up and review it simply was an indication that they did not dare to because they knew that they could only come to one decision in that case, that this was a travesty of justice. So this piles up on and on and that is exposed, as I said, this is not about the law. It's not a judiciary question. It's a political one. The Supreme Court potentially changed extradition law by this decision because the issue was when, at what point in the process, you can put these promises in and by not hearing it, it seems now that it could put it in at any time. And that was something that was a major issue, not just in Julian Assange's case, but in general. Were you surprised that the Supreme Court did not take the case? Frankly, I was surprised because it was such a natural case. I mean, I've never seen a case so fitting to be taken up to a higher court, the Supreme Court here or the Constitutional Court in any other European country, because it's a key point in a judicial process. And now they've set the example. The losing party, if they have good backings in America, especially, they can basically, if they lose, they can come, hang on. All right. Here is a piece of paper, assurances, changes to everything. I mean, the Americans had every opportunity in the Magistrate Court to answer the accusation of bad treatment in free trial and post trial detention. They did not. They went out of the way to basically portray their prison system as ideal, excellent. And even the super much prison in Colorado was basically being depicted as a country club where people could play bridge. And yes, of course, they could communicate. They could shout between souls when they were locked out 24 seven. So they went out of the way to justify the system. When they lost on that point, they decided, okay, then we'll change our tune. Totally unacceptable. James Lewis said, we had no idea that she would take this health into consideration, but we had days of testimony on his health. It's surprising because the Supreme Court took the Swedish case back for 10 years ago or more. That was far less consequential than this. And yet they wouldn't touch this. And I also thought they would at least make the pretence of going through a due process by having by taking that case about about Gillian's health. Of course, we now know that he had a stroke on that very first day. But that stroke had to become known to the high court. This is the question. When did they know that his health had deteriorated even further than what had been when Rachel made her decision? Did they know about it before they decided to agree with the matter? Do you know this? Can you speak about it? Well, I mean, as far as I know, the doctors are cautious and they took them a considerable time to decide that this was a stroke, a so-called menstrual. It does not do lost lasting damage, but in a high proportion of cases, it's an indication of a possibility and a higher risk of a full stroke. So it's a very serious warning. But it did not do lasting damage. And of course, he got medication to counter that. But it took time to process and the doctors wanted to be careful. So it took time for them to come to the decision and basically declared this was a menace. Well, the high court had to know because it was announced the next day after their ruling that he had had this stroke. Now, you know that in Alexander detention center, where he'll first go, there's no doctor according to testimony. Who was the testimony? Gensielis. Yeah, Gensielis testimony said there's no one doctor. What kind of an assurance is that? You will get medical care. The assurances have been taught apart, not by us and by our lawyers, but independent reviewers. I mean, I'm just to say, I mean, Amnesty International did not mention any words when they said this is not worth the paper it's written on. Not just on the clause that they retain the right to change their mind at any point in time. So it's not assurance at all. But simply, you know, that they're making promises they can keep and have no intention to keep. And there are examples, numerous examples of such assurances that have been broken in the past. And that was revealing discussed in the courtroom. So it should be obvious that this is just a facade. It's just a small hurdle they decided to throw in this flimsy sort of document to try to overcome and give the American the sort of safe facing ability or the attempt to save face by relying on it entirely. Now, a judge is supposed to be independent of the political system, make its own decision, cannot yield to any pressure, even though they're in the establishment, and then maybe they understood what was expected of them. But this is, as you say, it's a political decision by Patel here in this building in the Home Office. What kind of pressure do you think she might be under? Aside from the protesters here? I mean, politicians, they think about their legacy. They think about their next election. They think about their voters. And that's the primary, the homophilicus. That's what makes them tick. But let's hope that there is an inkling of consciousness as well. Everybody was surprised a decade ago when her predecessor, Theresa May, actually overturned a decision by the courts here to extradite an individual to the United States, who was a hacker, who was not well. Glory, love this. No, I'm talking about Karen McKinnon. So, I mean, he was, he had a spiritual syndrome, he had mental issues, and he was deemed to be really a health risk. So Theresa May actually surprisingly decided to end it and stop the extradition. And actually, that sent shockwaves, according to a new book out into the Crown Prosecution Service, who was furious about the overturning of the decision of the courts. The head of the Crown Prosecution Service at that time was Sir Keir Sarmer, now the leader of the Labour Party. So, politics is a strange beast. Anything can happen. I'm hoping that this is something that will be taken up in the cabinet, in the administration here. So, I have to be optimistic that a human element that comes into play here, when there has been a total disregard of all other arguments, will have an effect here. Let's not forget that Boris Johnson was a journalist back in the days. He was a horrible journalist, some say. I don't care. He was part of the media community. He should have a better understanding of the implications in this case than many others. So, I'm going to be hopeful. Let's say she does free, do you understand? She says no extradition. What three courses the U.S. have about that? Can they start all over again as James Lewis threatened in the court to start that tradition? Not in this country, as I understand it. I mean, that's the end of the road for the U.S. I mean, they have had the chance to appeal process. I mean, that will be the end on the road for them. That is what I understand. And of course, that should be the natural thing to do. And I would be stunned if the Biden administration would try to push us any further if there is a political decision here to end it. So, that would be a very clear signal across the agenda. That it's over. Joe Biden, when he's vice president, said on television that we can't prosecute Julian Assange. We can't prove he actually stole the documents, if he just received them. But that was 2010. He's a president now, but something happening between that changed the minds of the Democratic Party and the intelligence services. That's very true. I mean, the revenge of certain elements in the empire is strong. And it is vengeance that is at play here. It is not about the law. It's about war, politics and hatred. That's what is being exposed here. And that is what the campaign, the whole battle has been successful in exposing and the lawyers in the portrait. And people are seeing this. They understand this. More and more politicians around the world understand that they are coming to Julian's side. We have now a list of, I think, six or seven hundred MPs in Europe in 14 countries forming a pro-Assange group, a support group, who all agree this is a case that needs to be ended politically. This is growing day by day. All the organizations, what is it in the U.S., more than two dozen human rights liberties groups that see the importance of this case. So the pressure is growing. So the sooner they stop it, the better, because it could have a serious political implication for the individuals involved if this is allowed to go on and on. On Saturday, there's an election in Australia, a federal election. The Labour Party is poised to win. And they have made statements in the past, including the leader, Anthony Albanese, that he was going to get on the phone with Biden. And enough is enough to use his word. Do you have any hope that that would have any effect on the United States if they follow through? No, Laurie, I've been a journalist for more than 30 years. I've dealt with politicians for more than 30 years. To rely on them is something that I would rather be betting on the car table, so we had the current foreign minister of Germany last fall before the election, being extremely pro-Azans and supportive of his fight. The days he took up the role of foreign minister in the federal government after the election in Germany, total silence on that phone. Albanese, I hope he will stick to his promises and his conviction there. And I hope that the electorate in his country will actually push him to it. As is happening in Germany now on to the foreign minister. But this is, you know, the nature of the peace. That's what Paul is alive. You can't rely on it that much, but at least there's an indication. And you know, politicians are not, or some of them at least, are not very happy when they point to double standards and broken promises. Final question about how the media has been covering this entire, that the corporate media, the big media. Have you seen any change? Are they showing enough interest in this right now coming down the stretch? I mean, there is a little bit of a growing interest, yes. Of course, we are being overshadowed by current events in Ukraine and the state of affairs, which is, of course, horrible. And we are in a very precarious time, actually at a time where the ideals of weak police is more needed than at any point in my lifetime. And I can say that for certain. But yes, there has been a growing interest. And, you know, three years ago, when Julian was dragged out of the embassy, since then, there has been a dramatic change. I mean, he was basically being depicted in the media here in the UK, the mainstream media, as almost subhuman. That was a total disregard for him. That has changed. That criticism has been dying down. That has been a turning of tide. And editorially, they have spoken in his favor and in his support. But they have a long way to go and actually showing a full interest and into the implications it will have on themselves and the future of the media in general. You have any questions? Yeah, I'm just going to ask about the stroke. But the only thing is, and I don't know how many people picked this up, but I did. And so did Mary Costa-Kittis, who's a veteran Australian journalist, that Lord Justice Ian Burnett drew a distinction between Julian's case and that of Laurie Love. Because he said that Laurie Love was suffering from a physical condition as well as Aspergers and depression. So now Julian is suffering from a physical condition as well. Is there not some recourse for medical intervention? Well, I mean, this is in terms of how the lawyers present this to the court. I mean, of course, this will be taken into consideration in the second appeal process. I'm absolutely certain. And it should be. Alongside all the other elements that can be placed into that process, an argument, strong arguments. So this is something that obviously come into play. These presidents are all in Julian's favor, so to speak, whether you look at Gary McKinnon or Laurie Love. And I simply think that it's time for the UK government to show a little spine to actually show that they are an independent country and not just a lacto. If you look at the look at the total imbalance in the extradition regime between the two countries, it is extraordinary. I mean, they had this huge difficulty and still haven't been able to extradite an individual, a lady back to the UK who faces accusation of manslaughter by mowing down a teenager on a moped. That is how bad it is. And then the administrators in the D.C. simply said, no, he's never going to invest without it, so just deal with it. So how can they just assume that automatically the UK government is to throw somebody on a rendition plane to fly over? So it's about national pride and credibility of Massachusetts. I mean, I'm stunned that the foreign office here in this country is trying to portray the UK as the sort of leading nation in the Western world in the fight for international press freedom. I mean, what kind of credibility is in that matters when Julian Assange is in prison here in Belma? Zero, nil. So I mean, that needs to be pointed out. And more and more people, and I'm not talking about Russian foreign office or Chinese officials or dictators in countries like Azerbaijan, who have actually done that in interviews with the BBC, who are you to criticize us, you have to prison Julian Assange. So it is undermining so many things, this case. So I hope this will come to an end. And it can end here with pretty much all. Thank you very much, Kristi. Even Johnson said it was an unbalanced What about the European Court of Human Rights? Is that a realistic option? Have you begun that process of filing with them? I'm in it. There's a look into forking it out, whether it has to come to the end of the road in the second appeal, or whether a separate case can be filed before the old avenues are exhausted in this country. There is some, I'm not on speed on the latest on that. But in the end, it will work.