 Internet. Internet. A stream online. TNTRadio.Live, today's news talk radio, TNT. All right, I'm very excited. Our guest today is Kathy Vogan. Kathy is an incredibly talented artist and musician, in addition to being an amazing independent journalist, and also the executive producer of CN Live, which is the incredible consortium news, news program that they do, their live show that they do. They're actually going to be co-hosting an event coming up here on January 29th in Sydney with politics in the pub. And it's called Saving Julien Assange. It's now or never. That is also going to be live streamed and recorded so that if you aren't able to make it in person, you'll be able to check it out afterwards. We'll get into some of the details about that later on in the show and dive into that. So, Kathy, thanks so much for being here. Hi, Miss D. Thanks for inviting me. Hi. Yeah, of course. I love it when you're here, especially because we are kind of reaching a critical point in the Assange case, as we've been talking about for some weeks now. But we have an official coordinate, two official coordinates, I guess, February 20th and 21st in London. And this is really kind of the last attempt at preventing extradition, correct? Yes. It's supposed to be an appeal to overturn, hopefully, the decision, a swift decision of Jonathan Swift to refuse leave for Julien Assange to appeal to the High Court. Now, things have happened in between. So, there may be issues that come up. One very important thing that has happened, and this is something that Craig Murray wrote about in November in an article called The Supreme Court Rwanda and Assange, and that's AAA versus the Secretary of State for the Home Department or Home Secretary. And a big decision was taken there about assurances coming from a requesting country for extradition. Now, before it was up to the Home Secretary to decide if a country is safe for somebody to be extradited to, and usually that was based on a couple of diplomatic notes. And the Supreme Court has decided that this is no longer the case, that these assurances must be tested in a court of law and thoroughly investigated. And so Craig Murray points out that this is highly relevant to the case of Julien Assange, because if you remember after the court of first instance refused to extradite Julien Assange, the U.S. appealed and the two judges on that panel, Burnett and Holroyd, said, okay, well, those assurances, even though when we read them, they were, you know, there was caveats in there, we can break this anytime we like. But they decided it was fine and then overturned the whole decision. And in fact, at the time, the late John Pilzer asked, well, what was the point of the whole extradition hearing, especially the testimony of four expert medical witnesses and also other witnesses, Yancy Ellis, Joel Sickler, for example, who testified as to the appalling conditions in the United States prisons. It was on the basis of those two things, mental health reasons and conditions in U.S. prisons that Judge Vanessa Beretso decided not to extradite Julien Assange. Well, now, in fact, we can review that again. It should be reviewed because Julien Assange's health has further deteriorated. This was in 2021. It was three years ago exactly since she said, I'm not going to extradite him. And then the appeal came up and his health has really changed since then. And as a result of this decision that came down in the Supreme Court, whereas no longer the place of Home Secretary to decide and state that a country is safe, a group of Australian parliamentarians, and of course, in our parliament, there are over 70 representatives and senators who are in this group now. It's a support group, a Bring Assange home group. They have written a letter to the Home Secretary, James Cleverly, and now they have demanded or requested, let's be nice about it. I'm going to quote, I'm going to quote, we are requesting that you undertake an urgent, thorough, and independent assessment of the risks to Mr. Assange's health and welfare in the event he is extradited to the United States. Consistent with the decision in AAA, it appears to us that such independent investigation should include a close review of the risks to Mr. Assange's health, life, and well-being through prolonged detention in one or more high-security U.S. detention facilities. And rightly so, because there was a distinction drawn in the U.S. appeal between Julian Assange and Laurie Love, whom Justice, Lord Chief Justice Ian Burnett had refused to extradite on health grounds. And at the time, he said, well, Laurie Love is suffering from a physical condition as well. Now, that was the very day that Julian had the stroke. And it was, oh, how long was that? About nine weeks later, the decision was announced. And then, I think just two days after that, we got the news that Julian had a stroke. But this distinction that Burnett made between Assange and Love, it was never reviewed. It's never been reviewed in the court of law. And this is a very clever letter, cleverly, requesting one of the best things that the Australian parliamentarians have done, because now they have requested this investigation. And let's remember they want it to be independent. So that is going to trigger the testing of the U.S. assurances. We hope, I'm not sure, but it may come down to another hearing in the Supreme Court. We have the High Court. It's a kind of a review of Swift's curt and somewhat glib. Let's use the word glib because Craig Murray, my favorite phrase in that article he wrote, because Swift was involved in the Rwandan decision, which was overturned, he says that the Supreme Court may have twigged as a glib little wanker. I love Craig Murray. I love Craig Murray. The amount of snark that he manages to get into his articles, he's just so witty and clever. He's just fantastic. We have to take a quick break and get some headlines, but you're right. I think that this is super interesting. Now, are they going to care? Who knows, but at the very least, I think that this is a little glimmer of hope. So we'll dive into some more of these details right after this here on TNT. All right, we are here with Kathy Vogue, and we're talking about the Julian Assange case, which is really in a crunch time moment. There are two new court dates in February, February 20th and 21st. If you are, it's in London, Royal Courts of Justice. If you are anywhere near London, please get to the court if you can. There are going to be rallies taking place. I believe everybody intends to gather outside the court around 8.30, and we need as many people there as humanly possible to send a message. So if you can get there, please get there. There will be other events taking place globally. I know that there will be taking stuff in D.C., Boston, Denver, Seattle, other places, Tulsa, other places here in the States. So try to find an event near you and get out there and show support in whatever way that you can. So we were just talking about this newest letter from members of the Australian Parliament. And as Kathy was just saying, this is an interesting prospect. And I think that it's good to have some, maybe a little cautious optimism here. But what's so frustrating to me about this whole situation and about these so-called assurances is that, Kathy, United States assurances, really? Who takes that seriously? Oh, we promise we're going to be nice to him. We promise. Pinky swear. It's just so absurd on its face. The idea that, not to mention, the United States has been revealed to have been plotting to murder him. So the idea that there is even a consideration from any court, from any judge, anywhere on planet Earth to extradite this man to a country that was revealed to be plotting to assassinate him is so beyond my ability to comprehend. And it just, I think, lays bare the height of corruption that has been pervasive in this entire situation. But you seem to think that there's reason to be a little bit optimistic here. Obviously, Craig Murray has a little glimmer of hope as well. What can we expect from this? When can we expect some kind of reply to this? I'm not familiar with how cleverly works or any of that stuff. Where do you think this is going? Well, as I said, this is supposed to be just a review of Swift's decision not to hear a high court appeal after Burnett and Holroyd decided to overturn the lower court decision not to extradite. And that appeal, if it goes forward and it is permitted we don't know who the judges are going to be. Let's hope it's not the same too. But it should be about all of the other points that Baratza, Judge Baratza, agreed with the United States or the Crown on. So the only one where she said, no, I am not going to extradite him on health grounds. You see, there was all those other points that they made and you bring up the assassination attempt. There has been lots of things that have happened since then. But also there's the whole UC Global case and now that's, we've found out since in a Spanish court and now in the United States there's a Fourth Amendment case that's going forward with the Roth Law Firm. We now know that there was breach of attorney-client privilege as well. That is a very grave matter. I mean, that's another thing that should get the case thrown out of court. There are many different things and we would love Assange to have his say. But at the same time, my God, he's been in Belmarsh for five years now and you can't expect a human being to wait their whole lifetime to be given permission to just say, excuse me, but what's been done here is terribly wrong. Now, the other thing that is really important if you read the 150-page submission to the High Court from Assange's defense team led, supervised by Gareth Pierce, I might add, you will find out that there are a number of cases where the US deceived the UK court on the core facts of the case. I won't go into those details, but all of that comes under the category of Zakruski abuse. So the evidence has to be truthful. It has to be fair. So there's all of that where the whole thing was misrepresented. So it would be good. The world would love to hear that in Julian Battle for the Free Press. But the point is that our Australian Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, it's very rare that they agree on something. I can't even think of another major case where something as controversial as Julian's case was in the past. They are absolutely in agreement and there are 70 parliamentarians that are just terribly concerned about Julian's health at this stage. And we have to understand that his life is slipping away. Yes. And I think that the other thing is that even from a political point of view, it would be a good move for the Biden administration. Biden's popularity has plummeted due to wars that are going on and other domestic issues. And you have a similar thing happening in the UK. That it would be a relief to all of us if Julian was just given his life back again and sent back to his young family. Yeah, 100%. And that's, I think that people need to, we need to really impress upon people how dire Julian's situation is. His health has been declining for many years now. Stella was just not, Stella Assange's wife was just recently on the Jimmy D'Or show, which was being guest hosted by my friend Russell. And they asked about Julian's condition and she said it's difficult to answer that question because it varies from day to day, but his health has been declining for a very long time. And I think that what people really need to think about is that he's being held in indefinite detention, which means there's no end game. There's no light at the end of the tunnel. He has no idea when this situation will come to a conclusion. And that is another addition to the torturous aspect of this, because if you can just imagine being in a high security prison for nearly five years now, if you will ever end or win or if you will ever get to speak your peace or have a voice or any of that, I think that that is incredibly difficult to deal with. And so not only is his health declining physically, as you mentioned, he had the mini stroke. He has had a whole barrage of health issues over the years from shoulder issues to tooth issues. He was unable to get adequate healthcare for many years while he was in the embassy. But also his mental condition has been declining for a very long time. As I think anyone would expect when you are dealing with prolonged isolation and really just terrible conditions. So we have to take another quick break, but we're going to get into some more details here on these court cases coming up right after this here on Today's News Talk. Misty Winston on Today's News Talk Radio, TNT. All right, we are here with Kathy Vogan from The Incredible Consortium News. I know I talk about them all the time on the show. I'm going to do it again. It's going to be fantastic. Some of the best work that is being done out there. Please go and support them however you're able. There's not enough praise to heap upon them. So we're here talking about the Julian Assange case. So you were just talking about that Julian would like to have a voice. Do you know, is he going to be permitted to attend the two court dates in February? Is he going to be allowed to attend in person? Do you know? I wouldn't know that, but he hasn't been allowed to attend in person for a very long time now. And if you're a courtroom journalist, I've been live tweeting from the courtroom. You can see him on a monitor. He's just in a room that connects to the prison. So he's not physically in court. And it's hard to tell whether the judges can actually see him. If they can, then, as Mary Postakitas pointed out, it's absolutely scandalous that they didn't halt the proceedings the day that he had this mini-stroke because, my God, he looked so ill. He was absolutely almost fatally ill. Mary called me and said, what the hell is wrong with him? He keeps falling over, and he can't hold his head up, and his face was ashen, and his eyes were kind of rolling back in his head. I mean, who wouldn't know that something was terribly wrong? I remember that day, Kathy, because literally everybody, Kevin, Mary Postakitas, every journalist seeing him on screen, everybody was talking about how awful he looked. He looks so sick. He looks like he's about to pass out. It was just breaking my heart because it was so frustrating about that day and that situation was, as he is sitting there in a tiny room in Belmarsh where he's being forced to participate in his own trial via video link, which is absurd. He's in a fight for his life, and they won't even allow him to attend his own hearings in person. In the courtroom, as he is sitting there in this tiny room in Belmarsh, having a mini-stroke, the prosecution is in the courtroom calling him a malingerer saying he's faking it to avoid accountability. You couldn't write that. I mean, it is just so frustrating, Kathy. So frustrating. Yeah, well, that's what would really do your head in because if you're a bit confused that the defense was insisting that he would have the argument was about his likelihood of committing suicide so therefore to prove his integrity, he would have to do it, right? Yeah, crazy. It's an insane argument, yes, or die. And I think, honestly, I think that they would like for him to die in prison. I think that that would be a very easy way for them to everybody to just wash their hands of it. Oh, oh no, look at that. That's terrible. What a tragedy. And then everybody would move about their day. I think it's very easy for those of us who are admirers of Assange to think that he is somewhat superhuman due to everything that he's been able to withstand. But we need to remember he is just a man and he has had to withstand so much over the course of the past decade plus. This is not just the nearly five years in Belmarsh. It's the years that he spent in the Ecuadorian embassy and the years that he was being detained in some way, shape, form, or fashion in the time before that. So this is really just that his life is slipping away. He has had to sacrifice over a decade of his life over a decade of time. I mean, if you just think about, if I think back to everything I've done in the past decade and I realize that that's been stolen from him, it makes me incredibly angry that he is being punished in this way simply for telling the truth. That's all that he did was publish truthful information. What a tragedy. Terrible. That's right. Let's not forget that in the first five years that he was in the Ecuadorian embassy under the presidency of Rafael Carrilla he was Fidel Navés who was first secretary at the Ecuadorian embassy tells us that it wasn't easy being confined and he wasn't getting any sunlight but he was able to keep working and there were lots of people that went to visit but then gradually when President Moreno took over the staff at the embassy were changed and they just started getting more and more draconian Stella Sange describes it as a black site. It became like a black site. A lot of this is described in fact the whole thing is described in the book by Nils Melser the trial of Julian Sange and I think that's very worth reading I think a lot of people have now the finer details for example that there were 50 violations of due process in Sweden alone in order to ensnare him and to get him over there and then they had a temporary surrender treaty going with the United States to bounce them across there to the United States I mean that's why he went to the embassy in the first place he got word of where he was headed for and it was very very harsh conditions there that were awaiting him in Sweden and that was all completely trumped up I mean it's disgraceful that even a witness testimony was tampered with a police person Mellie Kranz she signed this statement from a witness who had only just begun to talk and then she realized what they were trying to do and took off fabricated evidence they spoke to the press when the police did when it's absolutely against the law to do that one and the whole world was convinced that they were charges there in Sweden and it never went beyond a preliminary investigation which was absolutely fruitless had to be dropped in the end because there was just no evidence that any of this had happened which is a ploy to get so many things in this whole situation I mean we've mentioned just a few of them the Trumped Up Stuff in Sweden we mentioned the UC Global case where literally the CIA co-opted a security firm from Spain and turned it into essentially a spying operation where they were recording conversations with Julian Assange and all of his visitors including and I know we touched on this briefly but I think it needs to be repeated they were spying on conversations with his legal team that is an unbelievable violation of his rights the idea that that alone isn't enough to have this case lit on fire is astonishing to me we mentioned the assassination plots that were developed at the highest levels of the Trump administration I mean there's just been so many things and so many violations of his rights that it is it really is astonishing to me that this has been allowed to continue that this is able to continue and that there isn't more public outcry about it I mean we are starting to see support for Assange grow which has been kind of a slow build up I think that you know we're seeing that obviously as you mentioned there's a massive group of parliamentarians in Australia who are now supportive of Assange and that is in no small part thanks to the incredible activists on the ground there who have done a phenomenal job of lobbying those politicians of reaching out to them of putting pressure on them of making it an election issue of making it an issue of importance in Australian politics which they don't get enough the activists over there don't get enough credit in my opinion but it's just it's to me it's just so I'm impatient and it seems very slow and as you said as we've been talking about Julian's health has been in decline for some time now and I'm just not sure how much he can take and I it's just I would very much like to see him home Kathy that's all I'm trying to say yeah and I think we'd like to see him working again he has won around 30 major awards for journalism I mean you've even had these people trying to say this guy's not a journalist he's one hour equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize in Australia he's won a Walkley Award but he's also won so many just about every award he's the most highly awarded journalist in history how many awards has Ripit Murdock won none he gives them out to his stuff what do you think because what you just said is 100% true Julian Assange is absolutely a journalist there is no debate about that he is a card carrying member of two I think two different journalists unions he's an honorary member of some others he's won dozens of journalism awards he WikiLeaks as far as I know is the only news organization on planet earth who has a 100% record of accuracy I don't know that seems pretty journalistic to me but the committee to protect journalists just recently refused to add him to their list of detained journalists and when Kevin Costola reached out to them they said he's not a journalist what the heck Kathy well you know I remember I think it might have been Craig Murray who said that judges read the newspapers too and probably these people who run these organizations read the newspapers as well and there's been so much misinformation fed to journalists I mean this doesn't just happen in relation to Assange it happens in relation to wars for example as well first casualty is truth so these are things that people have heard over the last decade and one of the jobs of activists but also journalists who have taken on this case and want to know the truth about what happened writers as well that's kind of like three quarters of the job to try and get it to percolate down so that people like that who run these organizations who knows who they are they're really paying attention and let's face it there isn't enough known about Julian Assange in the United States information about him has been kept out or else falsified but I believe you've got a resolution 934 that has been started in the United States so there for example that resolution this whole business about him having aided Chelsea Manning to obtain this information that has been called I think fabled nonsense in this resolution because of course in court it has been amply demonstrated and in fact it was demonstrated in Manning's Court Marshall back in 2012 that that was patent nonsense but there had to be some kind of hook to enable these espionage charges otherwise you know as Biden said back in 2011 if the information was just dropped on a journalist's lap they would just be a regular journalist that you couldn't you couldn't convict them of anything by God that would be a disaster and actually I don't know if you know this the 150 page high court appeal that Justice Swift rejected it is mentioned there that at the very last moment the US prosecution dropped that accusation that Julian had aided and abetted Manning so that's yeah that's actually something that I didn't know until I read that appeal that they had actually disavowed that opinion that that's what happened that was a narrative that they invented in order to help Manning be anonymous this is rubbish because Manning had nothing to do with WikiLeaks before nearly all of it except for the State Department cables had been uploaded to the WikiLeaks website and Manning had top secret clearance already so why would she need any help whatsoever I also told that she was a crack technician often helping the others there in the place where she was working I just wanted to tell you a little bit more about the event on Monday yes please yes I'm just going to do that because one very important speaker that we have is Jennifer Robinson so that's Julian Assange's lawyer you asked for more details on what is upcoming so Jennifer may well be able to fill us in and give us a better idea of what's going to happen on February 20th and 21st we also have Senator David Shoebridge who is one of the four co-signatories of the letter to the UK Home Secretary James Cleverly he has been a very strong voice for getting Assange home he was one of the DC6 the six Australian politicians who went to Washington late last year so we will hear a lot more from Shoebridge as well plus I'm going to do an interview next week with him and Josh Wilson another Australian politician but this one is a member of the government so they're both going to talk more about this letter to the UK Home Secretary and what the Australian politicians are asking for and rightly so and Mary Kostakitas who was really the face of primetime news for 20 years in Australia on our international channel SBS she is still a journalist and still writing away Mary also was one of the two people who awarded Julian the Sydney Peace Medal for exceptional courage and initiative in the pursuit of human rights so she is going to be talking if anybody knows the Assange case Mary does I think she's been following it since 2006 when WikiLeaks started the other person who gave that award is Stuart Reese we're going to have Stuart Reese as well he's going to be giving a short introduction we have Dr. Arthur Chesterfield Evans who is one of the doctors for Assange and I feel it's quite important that we have him speak as well in order to clarify for people what would happen to Julian Assange if he were in say ADC in Alexandria and he had a major stroke well basically he's dead meat you have to get him into a sophisticated operating room within three hours or else you know just to get it Kathy listen we're almost out of time I'm sorry to have to interrupt you Joe Laurie is also going to be speaking at this event that's right yes yeah please and I love Joe he's fantastic please go to politicsinthepub.org.au or consortiumnews.com you can find out more information there again this is going to be on January 29 so please check that out Kathy thank you so much for coming on the show you're welcome back anytime of course as Julian Assange says learn challenge act now and I'll go anywhere Timothy Shays right after this here on today's news talk