 We're joined by Andrew Fowler, a long time well-known Australian journalist and the author of The Most Dangerous Man in the World, a biography of Julian Sange, by Mary Kostakidis, a long-time Australian TV presenter, and by Alexander McCuris in London, Mary and Andrew. We're joined by Andrew Fowler, a long time well-known Australian journalist. Alexander McCuris is in London and he's a British legal analyst. We're going to go silent for a second because we have a feedback. So, Mary, let me start with you. I'm going to ask each of you your initial reactions, then of course Mary, Elizabeth and I have a bunch of questions. Okay, well, I'm relieved, of course. It's been 10 long years for Julian and he's going to be free, we hope. Mary, let me start with you. I'm going to ask each of you your first question. Oh dear, we're getting feedback. I'm going to try and ignore that. It was sounding very, very grim for a while, but when she delivered her judgment and the reasons for it, I thought a number of things, a blow to the United States in terms of their inhumane, it's a condemnation of their inhumane reasons. And secondly, I thought this was an appeal-proof judgment. She conceded a lot of points to the United States. So all they have to argue about is prison conditions for national security inmates and his mental health. And I think that really narrows it down. And I'm very hopeful that the United States will lose on appeal. So I guess I'm trying to temper my disappointment that this judgment is not a win for press freedom and it's not a win for journalists. But it's a very, very good result for this individual that has paid an enormous cost for what he has done for revealing war crimes, government malfeasance. And he deserves not to be in jail for the rest of his life for that. Mayor Andrew, what were your thoughts when you heard Bertha said that Assange should be discharged? Well, I'd been like Mary following the case and listening to the Americans win every single point that she took us down as you said that long, long dark tunnel. And everything that she was saying was pointing to the criminalizing of journalism. It's what we do every day for what Assange did and what he was charged with is what we do every day. And of course, when we got to the end to the last five minutes, when she then having accepted the United States argument completely, and I thought some of her points were wrong, in fact, had they been challenged in a high court appeal, I think they'd have been overturned. But then at the end to have the whole thing turned around, she says, OK, well, Julian is a risk to himself and that he would find a way to kill himself. She accepted the psychiatric argument as completely as she had accepted the United States argument. And I thought as I watched her do that, that this seemed to me to be a way of the court and the establishment washing their hands of the case and getting away under this this this rock was placed on them, but Assange placed on them and getting away from that problem of dealing with this issue. So what they've got on the record now is that everything that Julian Assange was charged with is now seen by at least the at that level of court hearing to be a criminal criminal act. And and yet Assange, hopefully, walked free. Now, that's the hard sort of look at it, but personally, I'm extremely delighted. I'm very happy that Julian Assange may be on bail. If there's a legal appeal granted, then he'll be given him a given bail. And I'm very happy. I'd be pretty much happy if there was no legal appeal. Assange, who's carried as has been said before so much of what journalism stands for and stood against those people who repeatedly battered him. He's he's gone beyond the call of duty as a journalist. And I'm extremely happy for him tonight that he's possibly going to be a free man. Alexander, what's your view from London where this all took place? Well, first of all, I have to endorse what all what the previous two speakers have both said. It's a very, very good decision for Julian Assange. He has been through a terrible time. He will now I'm sure be released. He will I am sure soon be reunited with his family. He has been spared the prospect of being sent to the United States. At least at the time being we're going to come to that shortly because there are things traps for him that have been laid for the future. But at the moment, he's had a very, very good decision. And that is an extremely good at a human level. I would also, by the way, agree that this is a very, very difficult decision to appeal because if the United States wants to appeal that what they're up against is the fact that the judge has made findings of fact about the U.S. prison system and about Julian Assange's mental health, which high courts on appeal are very reluctant to go behind. So I would have thought this was a very difficult decision to appeal. But I have to endorse again or so what the two previous speakers said. We had, we now have a high court judge or a judgment of the court, which basically criminalizes an awful lot of an awful lot of journalistic activity. And the kind of things that Julian Assange does, and of course the kind of things that journalists routinely do. It also says the journalists who do these things can be extradited to the United States. It says extradition to the United States on political grounds is now permissible, which I find a extraordinary and very disturbing development. And of course the other thing this thing, this court, this, the way this thing has been structured is that on the one hand Julian Assange is free. On the other hand, all these decisions about restricting what journalists can do have been now given, if you like, a legal stamp of approval. And in a way, because Julian Assange is not going to be extradited. It is going to be much more difficult if possible, if even possible, to challenge these decisions that Baritza has made on appeal and say that these things, these points of, you know, it's possible to extradite people to the US on political charges. It's a lot of this activity is now accepted as being criminal. It can't now perhaps as easily as it could be challenged on appeal. I am not convinced that the US authorities will necessarily appeal this decision because from their point of view, they have gained an awful lot of what they wanted. They haven't got the man, but they've got the law now. And I would have thought that if they appealed this decision, they might run the risk of the High Court commenting on some of Baritza's findings on the legal points, and they might not be willing to risk that. So I think it's not certain that there will be an appeal, at least to me. And if we look at the judgment, separate the judgment from Assange himself, this is a disturbing judgment in many ways. And it shows that though the important battle has been won, the war is far from over. Well, again, when you say about appeal, you're talking about future cases where these issues could come up, not his case. Well, not his case. Not his case. Exactly. But, you know, one has to think also of future cases and work the journalists to I would also add that this this decision in a sense restricts some of the things that Assange has done because he's now been told by the court that some of his actions are conceivably contrary to the Official Secrets Act. It wasn't really investigated in great detail. But if he goes back and starts working again, as he did previously, then in Britain, then he could find himself in legal jeopardy in future. That's interesting. Mary, let me go back to you with the question that begs being asked now is why. Why did she agree to do this? And as Andrew pointed out, many of them, her statements were just factually incorrect when it came to the computer intrusion charge and on the other hand, that's been objected as well. She's describing, as the indictment does journalism, protecting the identity of a source. Why did she do this? I'm going to just throw out there that this makes an appeal. And by the way, the United States has said they will appeal. That is not a question right now. This makes an appeal more difficult, doesn't it, from the point of view is they can only appeal her decision on on the health grounds on the suicide issue because she agreed with them on everything else. They don't need to appeal anything that she said, because she was in accord with them. So I'm not saying that's why she did it, but my question is, why did she do it? What do you think Mary? Well, she's creating, she's creating law, isn't she? I mean, I agree with Alex. What she's done, essentially, is she has given the United States their win. And they now know that they will quite possibly the next time round succeed, because all that has saved Julian is the fact that there have been suicides in his family. So he has family history and, and the inhumane conditions of the prison system. That's always going to be there, of course, that aspect of it. I was shocked. First of all, I have to say, the audio was so bad. This was a much bigger courtroom, and they didn't get the audio right till about halfway through. I was looking forward to reading the judgment. But what I could hear was very disturbing because, again, I agree with with Alex and Andrew. It seemed to me that she was actually making errors in her findings, which is rather astonishing. Perhaps, she felt secure in knowing that those points are not going to be appealed. That, you know, she, it felt like what she was doing is giving both sides a win, a very important win to the United States, but then letting him off as well on the basis of his health. Andrew, how do you weigh in on that question of why Beretta did what she did today? What was behind it in your view? It was a very hard question to answer. But when you look at the judge that oversees these, these cases, Judge Arbuthnot, she's very close to the military establishment, her husband sits in the House of Lords, and he was on the Security Intelligence Committee. And it was because she was so close, she actually upset herself on this case, I understand, although she hasn't admitted that. But she still is the person overseeing it. This is not a normal criminal case. This is a political case. And so consequently, this finding is a political finding. And it allows, as Mary just said, both sides have a win here. But the problem with it is that it does, as the other guests were saying, criminalize the everyday work of journalists. So it hands the Americans the right to extradite anybody from the United Kingdom who's working as a journalist who's done something to displease the military establishment in the US. And the only argument they seem to be able to run is that clearly it's not a political offense. I mean, it's not a political offense. And that ruling I thought was quite extraordinary, as the other guests said. But they can't move from that position. They are journalists working in the United Kingdom. They make a report which upsets the United States, and they can then extradite them to the US unless they can prove some sort of mental health history, some sort of problem with mental health. It seems to be if the findings are upheld, then to be the only avenue for journalists to escape extradition to the US. The other thing to bear in mind, of course, is that if Julian is free, if there is, I think you did say that there's an appeal, but if that appeal is not upheld and he goes free, then how does Julian Assange travel around the world? Where does he end up? Where is he safe to be? I can't foresee that the circumstances ahead of this, but I don't think Julian is going to not do journalism. And I think that the problem will unfold in another way in some future jurisdiction where maybe the problems that the United Kingdom has had with its judicial process with the Assange case wouldn't be quite as clear. For example, you may end up, if you were to be transiting through Doha on the way back to Australia, for example. I mean, there are all sorts of problems ahead, but the biggest problem is not only for Julian, of course, but also for all of us as journalists. That would mean another indictment against him. So what you're saying, Andrew, is only healthy journalists, healthy journalists are endangered by this ruling. Elizabeth, why don't you weigh in? I mean, I was shocked as were we all, but when we saw the news, when I saw the news following the live tweeting on Twitter, it was incredible. I just wanted to ask how likely you think it is, Alex, that Assange will be released on bail as while the US appeals? I think that he will. I think there's a high chance that he will be released on bail because Maritza obviously has ordered his discharge. And on top of all of that, she's also said that he's not been in good mental and health. And for all these reasons, I would have thought there'd be a strong grounds now very strong grounds for allowing his release on bail. So I would expect that some of the British media have been speculating that may happen today. So let's keep our fingers crossed and hope that happens. Can I quickly add to all of this that I do wonder whether the reason why Maritza made the decision that she did in the way that she has is that, of course, on the one hand, she did want to make all these legal findings, which give the United States an awful lot of what he wants. But quite apart from the fact that her findings on the mental health and the prison system in the United States are undoubtedly true, it's also a way of avoiding controversy and slipping the decision that in effect criminalizes so much of what journalists do through in a way that doesn't really provoke an immediate response. If Julian Assange had been someone else, if there had not been this massive campaign on his behalf, if people were not prepared to go out and stand outside the Old Bailey for all those hours, if people weren't speaking on programs like this one, if they weren't writing articles and doing things like the things Consortium use has done, well, I am not sure I am not sure that he would not be on a plane to the United States. That's that's the reality of it. Political campaigns make a difference as somebody who once worked in the Royal Court of Justice. I can say for an absolute fact, what goes on in the street does pass through the walls of the courtroom. And the next question that follows up for me is, do you think that in some way the US authorities are in a sense relieved that they won't have to test the espionage act? Is that also a part of this? Well, in a British court quite possibly. I understand that they say that they're going to appeal. I wonder whether when they thought this thing through over the next two weeks, they will decide whether they want to go forward with that. Because from their point of view, they've got so much of what they wanted here. They haven't got the man, but they've got, if you like, the law now. And I would have thought that in the greater scheme of things, getting the law is more important to them than getting the man, especially if going after the man through bringing an appeal puts in jeopardy some of the wins that they won on the law. I'm not sure, by the way, what would happen if there was an appeal, if it went to appeal and whether the High Court would say anything or think about anything in relation to Barrett's other findings. And I, by the way, agree, many of her findings on the law were based on errors of fact. So I'm not sure that they would in fact, you know, look at those, but they might do. High Court judges are unpredictable, and they might actually find, as the Americans did that, that they would lose on the findings of fact about his mental health and the prison system, that the United States has won, which has lost on, but they might also find that some of the other things which the US has won on, well, maybe they might come on to some risk. So whether the US will want to do it, it depends, I suppose, how frankly vindictive they feel about Julian Assange. If I was advising them, I would say to them, you've won an awful lot, take what you've got and stop worrying about Assange for the moment. So basically for the supporters out there who are wondering if it's too early to really hope for the best in the outcome, just in terms of Assange personally, how much do you think we can assume that the High Court will uphold this decision and not have basically overturned on appeal? Nothing about this case is completely predictable, but I would have thought on balance, well not balance, I would have thought, I'd be very, very surprised if this decision was overturned on appeal, because the High Court does not really go behind findings of fact made by a lower court judge. She heard the witnesses, by the way, all that argument that we were hearing over the hearing about these people not being real experts, not being real expert witnesses, well the judge just ignored all of that, she treated them as experts, she heard the expert witnesses, she heard all these findings or this information about the prison system, and she is entitled to make that decision, that's what a judge is entitled to do. I can't see how that is wrong, how that can be argued to be wrong before the High Court. It is fully within her discretion as a judge to make those findings, and I would have thought any appeal against those findings on the mental health issues and on the US prison system and on the detention systems would be extremely difficult, and I'm sure the US authorities are being advised about that, so I would say that obviously you can't be 100% sure that an appeal is going to be refused, but if I was one of the Sanji supporters, well I am one of the Sanji supporters, I would be feeling very confident about it at the moment. Well I was just going to add we also want to just say that Fitzgerald said that the bail application will be submitted on Wednesday just to clarify that point, but then also I just wanted to respond to what you said Alex, and just add that if the US authorities are really after the law and not the man as you say, that really reverses a lot of the gut instinct that we've had about this prosecution being such a personal vendetta against Julian Assange individually. I think that's a really interesting turn of events if that's the case. Joe. Very quickly to say again, I mean this is where decisions made in anger. I mean I think what the US really needs to start doing is put its anger towards Assange to one side. That's legal advice. I mean I am very worried about the future implications of this judgment, but if they go on appealing, they will look even ever more vindictive and that has been obviously an important element of the case anyway. And by the way, it's something that even Baritza to some extent seem to recognize. I mean one of the things she said was you know one of the reasons he would not expect much leniency if you were sent into the prisons in the United States is that the intelligence community is so hostile to him. She actually says that in the judgment. I think all of these points are extremely well made but it does temper the joy I think that a lot of some supporters feel about what happened and the surprise. There's a very famous scene in the film Citizen Kane where Kane is running for governor of New York and his editor has prepared two front pages. One says Kane wins and the other one says fraud at the polls. And yes I know that sounds like Donald Trump but that's not my point. I did the same thing I can say I had three front pages prepared one Assange is free the second one being a extradition goes ahead and the third split decision that she decided on one and diamond and not the other. And I was completely had my finger on the button about extradition going forward, and I was very very surprised that she hit us up with that at the end. Let me ask if there's any political point here about the fact that the Trump administration is ending and they're the ones who brought this indictment, and they'll be a new administration coming does that have that play any role you think in this or is that just your coincidence Andrew. That's a very good question Joe. I mean, I, I don't know I do know that barrister did ask at the end of the hearing several months ago about whether or not the change of administration would mean anything and it just was left there. They're hanging. I mean, I would have thought that this is basically a decision by the, by the British administration, British courts, deciding what's in British judges point of view, Britain's best interests. I spoke with Alex made earlier about to get this right if I can about extradition can take place for political crimes or political events. I wondered if he could expand on that because I, if that's right then then it means that the arguments that you're that you're a political journalist doesn't prevent you from being extradited and journalism very often is very political in what it reports so I wonder if that's right is that and is that now seen as being law in the United Kingdom. If this finding if this case wraps up and and and is completed that her finding on that would be right would be now law is that right. Not entirely unqualified in the sense that she does accept that simply simply extraditing people from expressing opinions would be a breach of the article 10 of the Europe of the of the human right of the European Convention on human rights. But what she said, and it's very clearly set out in her judgment is that the old prohibition on extraditing people to the United States, simply because in the event that there was a political element in a prosecution, no longer exists. She says because it is not in the legislation, the enabling act that brought the, you know, set out the extra the terms of the extradition treaty, Parliament took a positive decision to remove it. And that means that you can in fact now extradite people in political cases to the United States. That's a completely new departure very disturbing one. I never thought she would go that far but she has. If if a journalist starts acting in ways that, you know, bring a jerk bring that journalist into the same kind of scope as the case against the sound she's been brought, despite the fact that it's a political case. The United States could still seek that that journalist extradition. And as you absolutely won't be said, unless that journalist could show that they got mental health issues and would be at risk of suicide in a US prison. They would be extradited to the US that is an extraordinary departure, a very concerning one, and one which I hope people in Britain, start noticing and start taking issues with because it goes against a whole century of British precedence and British traditional law go extending all the way back to the 19th century. Andrew and Mary I have a quick question about the the kind of feeling on the ground in Australia right now in support of the song I've seen on just on social media I've seen an uptick on specifically Australian actions in support of him you've got local towns, and their councils to express support. Has there been that kind of shift in public perception. Is that or am I just an echo chamber on social media with that. Andrew, would you like to marry would you like. No, well I was going to say, yes, there has been some increase in support. That's, that's true. I would just respond to something Alex has just said about legislation. This issue of not enacting that that provision to not extradite for political reasons because it is in the treaty that it was not enacted. It really is a wake up call to all of us about our laws, including our laws here in Australia, all those laws that protect journalists, but also, we need to pay a lot more attention at the various treaties we have and and our domestic legislation and what protections we have and I think that that that's something journalists here. I expect to see some stories about that. These are very, very important issues you can't wait until you know it's being tested in court and and also it's just it's hangs over you as a journalist how they're going to be doing their work when now it's quite clear that the United States can certainly extradite you from the UK and they possibly probably extradite you from Australia as well. I've strayed off the point. Yes, people in Australia I'm sure will be relieved even people who aren't ardent supporters and long term supporters as some of us have been. I think just people that I speak to believe that it like proportionality. It's not what he did didn't harm anyone. It embarrassed the United States and it revealed what they were doing and they didn't like that. But that's no reason really to lock someone up for life. He didn't harm anyone but I was a bit surprised. Maybe I shouldn't have been that parades was reading basically from the indictment about the informants that he he harmed these informants and that issue I thought was very well dealt with by the defense and their witnesses throughout the hearing and yet she put that she virtually had the indictment open both the indictments for the computer and the espionage and on her desk was reading word for word from that and then pulled a fast one and said well he's going to kill himself so we can't let him go, which again shows Britain as compassionate they've also, I guess kicked kissed a little US button before they kicked it by not turning them over. If you were to come to Australia, Mary or Andrew, and the US tried an extradition request there. And now the precedent may be said here by very it's not only on the dangerous ones about future journalism but also that this particular on this particular case he's ill, and he can't be extradited what you would think that Australia would just turn that down immediately wouldn't they I mean this is also a present. No, oh my goodness Mary. No. In fact at the very beginning, I went to a labor party elder as former senior politician, and he put to me that labor would have no any Australian government, be they liberal or labor would have to hand him over to the United States we have a treaty and that's the end of it. But that was before this judgment today. They would have, they would say when they also say he's he's suicide risk to go to the US having now drawing on. Yeah. Now look, I don't know. I don't I don't I didn't the the very strong impression that I have had is that Australia would just have handed him over. So you don't think he's safe coming back here in Australia. Well, not after this decision I mean it's already they've had they've had a go I don't think they would have a go I don't think they would have the go again but I'm not sure whether Alex and Andrew agree with that. What I'm saying is, I had put to them, what are they going to do to help and the response I got was, well, nothing because we would do exactly the same thing we would. We would have no choice we have a treaty. And that's why I think it's important for us to look at our treaties and to look at the domestic legislation. They wouldn't have a go with the Biden administration most likely will not have a second go to Sanjibar Pompeo is running for president in 2024. Just having said that Joe, I have to say that there has been support among some politicians in Australia some former politicians, quite senior people, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, former Foreign Minister, Bob car, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce and, you know, quite a large group of parliamentarians. So, fortunately, there are people in politics who are concerned about democracy and press freedom. Yeah, and I think Joe that son to pick up on Mary's point that the, if you look at it from an Australian perspective, I mean, this information about Julian Assange being tortured being terribly deteriorating mental condition has been known for years. Neil's met so the reporter on torture for the United Nations said he'd never seen so many countries gang up on one individual and try and destroy them. So this government in Australia has known these psychological pressure the deterioration of Assange over the years, and has done nothing, nothing to support him absolutely nothing. In fact, the Prime Minister said a few months ago that Julian Assange should face the music. Well, this determination today by judge Barista actually says everything that Nils met said everything we've known about Assange is mental health, all the things that the High Commission, the Australian High Commission in London would have known about the destruction of an Australian prison in a high security prison, all those things, and they have remained silent. It's absolutely and completely immoral. They have no moral standing in the community to allow that to happen. And one thing that Barista's decision has done is to, is to point to that point that you knew about it, and you did nothing. So, you know, it's, it's just shocking. It is really shocking to think that a fellow human being a fellow Australian journalist would be locked away, and would be tortured, as Spencer said, and we now here is in the terrible, terrible mental state. And we just said well, let the Americans and the British do what they want to with one of our citizens. And hopefully Melza and the doctors for Assange probably deserve a lot of credit because it was on this very issue of his mental and physical health that this decision was made to where can you go. Where can Assange go and you expect and anybody could join in here Alex or Mary expecting me back at work anytime soon and we'll be seeing some Trump administration documents being published by weekly weeks anytime soon. I absolutely think that's right. I'm not very good at sort of pointing to Julian's future because I, every time I think I kind of know what might happen. He turns out to be right and I turn out to be wrong about the extradition to the US and the role of the Swedes and all that sort of stuff. But I think that, I mean, Julian Assange is a journalist through and through. I mean, he's going to be returning to the fold. I mean, I'm not sure how he'll do that. I would imagine, you know, he will do it extremely carefully and probably be counseled against it. But Julian's his own person. He will do what he thinks is right. It's the reason he's withstood this battering over a decade now and maintained his journalistic integrity. I mean, he could have, he could have pointed to his, he could have pointed to the sources, gave him the, the, the DNC documents, and he could have pointed to them and if they'd been in the right area, Trump would have pardoned them or dropped the charges. Right. But he didn't. He stood his ground and that's the sort of journalists that we want. I mean, but he has to make that decision himself and I'm sure he's, I'm sure his wife will have an opinion as well. Yeah, legal question for Alexander is a double jeopardy and an extradition decision because suppose he gets healthy and he stays in London, where his family is right now, and he starts working again and he's no longer suicidal. Could they bring a case then. Absolutely. No question about it. Can I just say on the Australian thing, this decision has no weight. Australia is not bound by it. So if you were to go to Australia, and the United States were to imply for his extradition from Australia, he'd have to argue at this point all over again, we'd have to have all the same witnesses about mental health. The Australian court would take into account what the British had decided, but it's not bound to follow what they've bound to come to the same view. And with Assange himself, if he carries work, carries on work as a journalist in Britain, which by the way, I am sure he will. That is his vocation. I think he was certain to go back to work as a journalist, but the danger in Britain or elsewhere of the United States coming after him again, hangs over his head now because the US will say well we've got all these decisions from the court. All these activities that he's practiced criminal offences. If he does the same sort of things again, then we will certainly extradite him. And of course if he's well, if he's been established that he's recovered, and that he's not under any kind of suicide risk, and if we made changes to our own prison system, then of course, you know, on that basis he could be extradited. The one thing I would say is that of course Maritza did accept that he's not just, you know, depressed. He's also got autism and various structural conditions, which presumably would not change in the future. But it's still, you know, a risky thing. And it's also important to remember that Maritza said that many of these activities that he's conducted as a journalist break potentially British law also. So the US authorities, if they're not, if they're worried about getting him over to the United States, they might say we can get the British to prosecute him. And of course Maritza says well you never got all these good protections in British prisons, they're much better than American prisons. So maybe we can keep him there. She, after all, consistently refused bail, despite, as we now see, accepting that he is a suicide risk. That's an excellent point you made, and a disturbing one, that he may be in danger in Britain because there the prisons are better, women say, than in the US, the US can never turn around their prison and make them better and turn an ocean liner around quicker than that. So he's in danger and perhaps because this, the reason why he wasn't extradited wouldn't no longer exist, he would go to a British prison where he would be less likely to commit suicide, although we did try and she acknowledged that in Belmarsh. Yes. Well, that's exactly right. I mean, we will see how this plays out. I think, can I say, I don't know about Australia. I get the sense that there has been a groundswell of support for Assange in Australia. There has been a significant groundswell of support for Assange in Britain. And this is something which perhaps has not been noticed, because it's not something that the political class in Britain has acknowledged. But you can certainly see it in the types of people who are turning out to protests. My wife, I've just given sort of anecdotal thing. She's put on a press and poster at our door and we had some workmen come round to do some work and they were very vocal about how they support Assange. So you get, you get more people now talking about Assange. There is support for Assange on the part of the British public and that does provide him with a certain measure for protection. If the British were to start a new case against him, perhaps that support would mobilize. But I mean, he's won an important victory, but the war is not over, both for journalists and I'm afraid for him too. I mean, he's always got to be careful now. But about him returning to work as a journalist, I have no doubt that's what he's going to do. Mary, how important do you think it is the statements that we're going to hear from Washington? It's 8, 18 a.m. right now. So they're just getting to work. We might hear from Pompeo, maybe from Trump. I think he can't resist tweeting about this. Give me hear from Hillary Clinton, where she will have thought that she probably wish she'd drowned him after all. So how do you think those statements might affect, not from Hillary, but the ones who are still in power, the decision to go ahead with this appeal? Look, I was half expecting Trump to pardon him. I thought all along that it's really the intelligence services that have been pushing for this, particularly after the Vault 7 publication. And Pompeo being as close as he is to Trump, and he's practically the only person Trump hasn't fired, he's been his right hand, that he would not have allowed him to pardon him. It almost doesn't matter what they say now. You know, it's over because we have the judgment and they can't argue about all those points of law, because she has refused extradition on the basis of findings of fact. And so they can't accuse her of making errors in law. So I think the US may have lost on extraditing their man, but they have made big gains here. And sadly, for journalists or around the world, they've made very big gains. We could go over if you have a little bit of time, some of the points that she made. But again, it was pretty much reading the indictment. Kathy Wogan is our executive producer and has a very good grasp of the computer intrusion part. Could you, Kathy, come on and just, what did she say about this and how is she wrong? And does that matter going forward too? We've been sort of stressing the espionage part of this. Practicing journals and hiding your source. She complained about that that made investigators unable to identify Chelsea Manning, all the things that are in the Espionage Act. But she also went into the computer intrusion act. Where was she wrong on that, Kathy? Okay, just testing first. Right. I need to mute this, sorry. Okay, so where I drew exception was what she said in relation to the expert witness, Paul Eller. And that was about Manning hiding her identity. The claim from Beretsa was that by helping Manning, I'm just going to have to take this off because I've got a bit of an echo. The claim she made about helping Manning hide her identity was that it would make it more difficult to trace who had actually used the download of the information. Now, Eller said that that was not the case. He said that it was done by IP address. So it made no difference. Who was logged into the machine at the time? It was always registering the IP address. So that was one point where I totally disagreed with her assessment. And I wonder if it's not that she just didn't understand what Eller was saying. It has any implications for that particular law about the Computer Fraud and Security Act. I'm getting that right. So this is troubling that she had so many things wrong. She even also said, I think, that Assange needed Chelsea Manning, or rather the other way around, needed Assange to help her get in to these classified files. So when the indictment itself says she didn't read that part, that she had clearance for all of this material. She didn't need his help. So I thought that was a troubling thing. So on the whole, Assange supporters are happy that he's been released and journalists should be unhappy that her court has now stamped approval on this very damaging and disturbing Espionage Act indictment. Well, he won't be indicted on it. Well, he won't be extradited on it. It's there and reserved for other journalists, even himself, maybe later on in Britain. So we can end the show now if everyone wants to just sum up. Andrew, let's start with you. Yeah, I think that's quite right. I mean, it is that two-edged sword. We're very happy for Assange that, as far as we can see, he's going to be free. And that's somebody who deserves their freedom as a journalist for all the work that he's done. At the same time, the findings, which are now in law, criminalize journalistic, normal journalistic activity, and limit the very journalism that Julian Assange brought to the world. But having said that and having spent some time with Julian Assange and actually writing about him and immersing myself for a long time in this, I would say that if there's anybody that's going to come up with some kind of a solution to this problem, it'll probably be Assange who will find a way around this. And it may not be that he'll be, he will remain in the United Kingdom under other countries where he can be domiciled and do his work. So that's a kind of positive to that very negative finding by Judge Parista. Mary, yeah. Then you can ask Alex that legal question. Yes. No, it's really I'm just so relieved. And I think I'm looking forward to seeing him walk out a free man and spend time with his family and just recover from horrendous 10 years. It's taken a tremendous toll on his, on his health, his physical health and mental health. I think it needs to recover from that. But I agree with Andrew Julian's extremely resourceful and he will, he will find a way to continue doing what he does, maybe not quite in this form, but he, I think he will definitely continue to be a political activist. And, and I think he'll, you know, focus on what this judgment means for press freedom, and there'll be time for us to regroup and consider what needs to be done. And I'm, and I'm sure he's going to be at the fore of that. I'd like to just ask a quick question from the audience before we sum up completely and that was for Alex, and it was, can Julian Assange appeal the basis of the judicial ruling without challenging the judgment itself. I'm not sure that he can and I'm not sure he'd be advised. I would advise him to. I mean, I think that his priority now must be to get out of detention and to uphold the judgment rather than undermine it. That's of course a lawyer's answer. As a journalist, he might want to actually challenge the judgment in many ways. And we'll see what he decides, because one of the things I've learned about Julian Assange, I've never met him. I've never had any dealings with him, but I've met people who have. And that is that he is his own man. He makes his own decisions. Sometimes he goes against the advice that his lawyers give him and it turns out right. So we'll see what he does decide to do. But I would have thought, as a legal point of perspective, that upholding the judgment would be more in his interest at the moment than trying to undermine it. Having said that, can I just come back to some of the points that were made about the computer hacking because the computer hacking thing is extremely sinister in the way it was done, because on the one hand, Baritza was clearly wrong. She didn't understand what this whole, or rather, she pretended, if you like, she didn't really understand what this whole thing was all about this business with Chelsea Manning and throwing in all these other old, you know, hackers. That was all completely inappropriate for Baritza to go down that particular rabbit hole. But what she did was she used the computer hacking allegations to undermine a Sanji's claim that he is a journalist. She said, journalists don't do that. So by doing that, she cast aspersions on Julian Assange's right to call himself a journalist and put any future journalist who tries to help a source protect themselves in the way that Julian Assange tried to protect Chelsea Manning in a position where it becomes open for the United States to say, that person, because they did those things, is not a real journalist and does not therefore have First Amendment protections. So I thought it was an extremely sinister and rather very dangerous thing that Baritza did. And I hope that at some point it is challenged. Only I don't think I would challenge it now because obviously a lawyer has to worry first and foremost about the best interests of their client and the best interests of the client at the moment is to uphold the judgement rather than to seek to undermine it given that Baritza has ordered that Assange be discharged. So let's take it one step at a time is what a lawyer would say. But Julian Assange himself can sometimes make extraordinary decisions and if he does, a heroic step to take is about the one person who might make it succeed but lawyers would be very, very nervous about going down that road. Both Andrew and Mary know Julian Assange pretty well met him numerous times. I was struck when the statement from Baritza came, the shocking statement, given where she brought us that he was to be discharged, the camera swung quickly to Julian Assange in the glass in dock and I didn't see any reaction at all from him. I don't know whether you and Andrew and Mary were also watching. Did you see that? What did you think of that? At the beginning he was doing this with his hands but then we all were, I was, all I could see was this, you know, look, Julian may have had a strong feeling that that was the basis on which she would not be able to extradite him just as, you know, that was the basis of the decision for not extraditing Laurie Love. It's something that they can fall back on, you know, it's uncontroversial, if you like. I'm, look, as I've heard other people speaking tonight, I have a sense of rising doom, potential doom. I'm hoping for once Julian will put his personal interests first and not want to challenge aspects of the judgment. It would be very much him to want to do so because it's always about the principle and he is a man of principle. But he is one person that has paid enough and I would like him and I think a lot of his supporters want to, to him to give himself permission to just accept this and walk free. And, you know, this other matter can, this can be dealt with down the track by someone else. I don't know, but I just think he's paid enough. Yeah, I, Joe, I interviewed Seymour Hirsch some time ago and asked him about, about Assange and he said, you know, Julian pulled him aside of the conference and they were talking and Seymour Hirsch gave him some advice and he said, but you know, Julian doesn't take advice from anybody. And I think, as Mary says, I mean, that's exactly the sort of situation where as Alex mentioned, you know, good advice, the legal advice would be, don't do that, don't do that. And, and Assange is likely to do what he thinks is the right thing to do. But the problem he faces, and this is a bit of gratuitous advice is that he needs to live, he needs to be alive to fight these battles. And the way he looked in court, I mean, you know, it's, it's part of the case that he's, he's troubled and the rest of it. But he looked like he was, you know, worn out, he looked worn out, and he needs to have some time to, to, to rebuild. Otherwise, it's no good being a, it's no good being a dead martyr or he needs to take his time and think about carefully what happens next. And I think you can take legal advice from, from Alex. Well, you know, I'm sitting here trying to wonder exactly how the United States can appeal this when they want on virtually every point, except that they can't prevent him from committing suicide. Are they going to march in there and say, look, you really have wonderful prisons and, and Blackwood, I think Nigel Blackwood, he was one of the psychiatrists for the prosecution who said that he could, it could all be managed with medication. Are they actually going to try to go in there, Alexander, to a high court judge and say, you know, it's all, it's not true. We have really great prisons and he can, his, his problems can be managed and she got that all wrong. I don't think that has any real mileage. And I think if they try to do that in the appeal court, they will lose. I mean, that's, that's my, that's my absolute clear view. I think that Baritza Baritza's findings, first of all, are correct. I'm sure that's absolutely the true position. And I no doubt whatsoever, as a judge, listening to the evidence, listening to the expert witnesses, being properly informed about the prison system, she's entitled to make these findings. I don't really think that this is really an appealable decision. Nothing is ever wholly predictable in this case. But I think the United States would be unwise to pursue this appeal. I think if they did that, they would lose. And I think certainly at the very least, they would look vindictive. I think that much better, they would be much better advised to let it go. But having said that, let's face it, they are vindictive. So this has been a part of the story of this case right the way through. And with people like Pompeo around, I can just easily imagine that they would try to take it further. Any problem being seen as vindictive, they're not seeing anything. They're the one nation who doesn't care what other people, other nations think about them. They can do what they bloody well please. But am I right, Alexander, saying that the only thing they can challenge in an appeal is their decision on his mental health, because they want everything else. What else is there for them to appeal, right? That is exactly right. I mean, it's the one point that they lost on. And I would have thought myself it was unappealable. I mean, in any other sort of case, I mean, bear in mind, there is precedent in support of what Baritza says. I mean, there was the Laurie Love case, which was very similar. And that was a High Court case. So I would have thought on this sort of ground, the chances of the US winning before the High Court are vanishingly small. Like I said, you know, if I was looking at this as one of a Sanchez lawyers, I would be feeling very confident about that appeal being refused. I think that will probably mean that he will get, I'm sure he will get bail on Wednesday. I'm sure we'll be talking about this for quite a long time. Oh, Kathy, I was just about to sign off, but Kathy wants to have one other thing to say. Yes, I'd like to say something. I'd like to say something in response to that Alex. There is precedent as well in the testimony from Lindsey Lewis. The US gave assurances that Abu Hamza would not be placed under SAMH, the double amputee. And she claims that the court would mislead because he was given SAMH. So they have a history of not sticking to any kind of special recommendations that they might make. They won't place an under SAMH, no way we'll do that. So that's already been shown not to have worked. Now, the other thing is in response to Mary, I don't think the situation in Australia is as grim as it was when you spoke to those senior, that senior Labour Party member. That was a long time ago. And since then the Commonwealth direction of public prosecutions has advised the Australian federal police that it is not in the public interest to prosecute a journalist. That reason, Dan Oaks, who was the ABC journalist, the charges were dropped. So that is a precedent. I was talking to George Christensen MP and he said that that would form a very strong legal argument whereby SAMH came back to Australia. That would be a very strong legal argument why he could not be and should not be extradited. Can I just say yes, they did make that decision in that particular case, but the law is there that enables them to prosecute. And I think we have to really do something about that. I think that's where we have to fight. Yes, the CDPP also said it would be very easy to secure a prosecution. Sorry, can I just ask us to clarify something that Alex said? Did you say, Alex, that they will probably not be given leave to appeal? Not just that you think they will lose an appeal, but they probably won't be given leave to appeal? No, I didn't say that. I think they may be given leave to appeal, but I think they will lose the appeal itself. I think they will probably get leave to appeal, not because they should, but because they're the United States realistically. And I think the High Court is not going to refuse to hear a case brought by the United States. But having said that, I am pretty sure that they will lose the appeal. I can't say I'm absolutely sure, because in this case you never can be. But I would have thought it would be very unlikely that this appeal would succeed. Very unlikely indeed. I'm not going to go off to Twitter to see what Pompeo and Trump had to say about this, unless one last thing that you wanted to put in, Elizabeth. Yeah, I just wanted to comment that, I mean, and this is kind of one of the more obvious things to say. And I'm sure a lot of supporters are thinking the same thing is that I hope that there is some place on this earth where science can live in real freedom without some type of, you know, extra judicial targeting that I'm sure, you know, the United States would consider. And I've already seen the UC global case and the ridiculous surveillance that was enacted upon a science and what was supposed to be sovereign, a sovereign piece of soil of Ecuador. So, you know, that my last comment is just that I hope that there is someplace you can live in freedom and peace, and then, you know, potentially work again if he chooses to. But that's very good and we all hope that and we hope to be reading weekly releases about the last four years and Trump White House. So I wanted to thank Elizabeth, my co-host, Mariko Sikitas in Sydney, Andrew Fallon in Sydney, Alexander McCruis, our CN live host, also in Sydney, Catherine Bogan. And there's a lot of Australian on this, but of course that's Assange nationality be curious if he tries to come back here what would happen. So there's a lot more going to happen in the story but it was a dramatic day. And this is our last report for the moment. So we're going to probably have another show on Wednesday and we're invited John Pildren trying to get a few other guests to continue this conversation. But until then, for CN live, this is Joe Laurier.