 Bill Hogan, what are your thoughts about the medical grounds of the appeal? It seems to be, to me, I'm not a lawyer, but the United States is going after the main defense medical expert witness as the primary focus and sort of a Hail Mary pass, as we say, in American football, because that is the evidence that, on the basis of which the judge denied the extradition, the judge denied the extradition on the fact that, to do so would be oppressive by means of mental illness and disorders, specifically depression. So the key witness, Dr. Michael Koppelman, made a finding that Assange is at a significant risk of suicide and that it would not be a rational decision. It would be almost compulsive in nature out of his own control. And so without that, the judge's basis for denying extradition is gone. And so if the prosecution can get this defense expert witness testimony thrown out, the whole denial of extradition crumbles significantly. So Koppelman, in his initial filing long before his final report and the hearing of medical evidence occurred, withheld his knowledge of Stella Morris' identity in his filing for the court and the prosecution is using that to say that this witness misled the court and therefore failed in his duty and he's partial to the defendant and not an objective witness and therefore he should be thrown out. However, first I wanna address one thing that happened at the High Court and then I wanna address the new revelations by Yahoo News. So one thing at the High Court that the prosecution lawyer Claire Dobbins said was that Judge Beritzer should have interrogated why Koppelman was willing to mislead unquote. Well, she in fact did that already. So we know from Judge Beritzer's ruling that there was an additional statement by Dr. Koppelman submitted in November, 2020 after the extradition hearing occurred as well as an additional statement from Gareth Pierce who's another one of Mr. Assange's lawyers dated December 1st and there was therefore detailed further submissions from counsel and writing about this issue. So the judge already did that. So Dobbins lying to say that Beritzer did not in fact interrogate why Koppelman did it. And so why Koppelman withheld the identity of Stella is because there was serious concerns for her safety and the safety of the children. And these Yahoo News revelations draw that fear into stark relief. If there wasn't ample justification before with the news about UC Global and assassination attempts, the Yahoo News revelations clarify and amplify just how significant a risk it was. The United States unleashed its full force of its counterintelligence against a small journalistic organization that does not have the basis to handle that like a nation-state intelligence service would. And of course, it wasn't just Assange they wanted to assassinate, they wanted to assassinate everybody in the key leaks. And it wasn't just Assange they wanted to classify as an information broker but they're going after multiple journalists including Len Greenwald and Walter Poitras. The other thing is that with this intense pressure from the world's most devastating and dangerous intelligence service in the world, it certainly explains why that would lead to Assange's symptoms of severe depression and explains even further the torture that we know exists against Assange. It's important to note that Koppelman intended to make full disclosure all along with the advent of the pandemic, the proceedings got delayed. So there was nine months in between his preliminary filing and his, well about seven months I would say but January he made his preliminary filing and then in August his full report. The medical evidence was supposed to be heard in I believe March and then it got postponed to May and then it got postponed to September because of various issues due to the pandemic. So during that long delay and due to the pandemic there was a bail application and it was at the bail application because for bail application you need to say where the prisoner will go and he was gonna go with Stella and so they had to make Stella's identity now. So Koppelman was caught up in this weird confluence of circumstances that he had a delay in between when he initially filed and when he came clean. There was no misleading of the court. The judge said she was never on misled. There was always a full intent to reveal Stella and be completely honest about that. And Koppelman's evidence is unimpeachable otherwise. There is though the article that was raised to also discredit Koppelman. Yes, there was an article published in 2017 in the British psychiatric bulletin that is a two pager that's an interview with Koppelman about his intent to spend his retirement getting justice for people who have been wronged. And he in particular took the testimony and interviewed did medical assessments of Guantanamo prisoners. These are British citizens who were held at Guantanamo and returned to Britain at the urging of the British government because of the revelations of torture. And the British government rather than try this case and probably at the urging of the United States government who didn't want their malfeasance exposed or trial settled the case. So there was a settlement of something like 30 million pounds to the British detainees at Guantanamo and Koppelman was instrumental in that. And so the interview is largely on that basis about him. But in that article he speaks of Gareth Pierce being exceptional at playing within the system. And then he kind of repeats that but leaves out within and says plays the system. And so the prosecution says, oh, he's biased because he wants to play the system against itself. And the other thing about this is this article is not properly introduced as evidence even at appeal. It's absolutely absurd that they couldn't have found this for the original hearing. Like how did they only now finally suddenly find this article which by the way is in the public domain. I didn't have to use NMI university library access to access this article. So it's completely silly that they couldn't have found this. You know, it's almost embarrassing. I would think for an attorney not to have been able to have found this and introduce it at the original hearing. But what it illustrates is the desperation and the absolute they're throwing absolutely everything like a compliment that they possibly can and an absolute desperate attempt to attack this eminent expert who the judge and the prosecution had full opportunity to hear and cross-examine and the cross-examination he withstood magnificently actually.