 So we have a major update to the Julian Assange case, specifically the United States' case for extradition. Their argument that they were using legally has basically completely fallen apart. And now it's unclear what's going to happen going forward. But having said that, of course, this is really good for Julian Assange and for press freedom in the United States. If the United States government isn't actually able to extradite someone who is effectively a publisher of leaks. So, for more on this, let's actually read the article which is an Icelandic publication that talked about an interview given by someone who purported to know Julian Assange. So a major witness in the United States Department of Justice case against Julian Assange has admitted to fabricating key accusations in the indictment against the WikiLeaks founder. The witness who has a documented history with sociopathy and has received several convictions for sexual abuse of minors and wide ranging financial fraud made the admission in a newly published interview in Stundan where he also confessed to having continued his crime spree whilst working with the Department of Justice and FBI and receiving a promise of immunity from prosecution. A man in question, Sigurdur Inge Thordorsen was recruited by US authorities to build a case against Assange after misleading them to believe he was previously a close associate of his. In fact, he had volunteered on a limited basis to raise money for WikiLeaks in 2010 but was found to have used that opportunity to embezzle more than $50,000 from the organization. Julian Assange was visiting Thordorsen's home country of Iceland around this time due to his work with Icelandic media and members of parliament in preparing the Icelandic modern media initiative, a press freedom project that produced a parliamentary resolution supporting whistleblowers and investigative journalism. The United States is currently seeking Assange's extradition from the United Kingdom in order to try him for espionage relating to the release of leaked classified documents. If convicted, he could face up to 175 years in prison. The indictment has sparked fears for press freedoms in the United States and beyond and prompted strong statements in support of Assange from Amnesty International, reporters without borders and editorial staff of The Washington Post and many others. US officials presented an updated version of an indictment against him to a magistrate court in London last summer. The veracity of the information contained therein is now directly contradicted by the main witness whose testimony it is based on. Wow, now we're not even scratching the surface as it relates to that article. It is very deep and comprehensive, so I will link to it down below and encourage you to read the whole thing. But there is a reason why you have outlets like The Washington Post coming out against the extradition case against Julian Assange. It's because in the event he were actually prosecuted under the Espionage Act, this could set a new precedent that actually stifles the First Amendment in the United States. It's a serious issue. I don't care what your thoughts are on Julian Assange. This is about press freedom in the United States. If it is now the case that publishers can be prosecuted on very legally dubious and flimsy grounds because they published classified leaks that the government didn't want to get out, imagine what that means for, you know, government's accountability and the First Amendment. Outlets like The Washington Post, Reuters, any other journalistic outlet may have to fear for themselves if they publish something that the government doesn't want to get out. So this isn't just about Julian Assange. This case has broad, broad implications, which is why I would highly encourage my liberal friends to try to get past Julian Assange here and whatever they may feel about him based on 2016 and try to think about the long term repercussions if the US government actually gets him extradited and prosecutes him under the Espionage Act. It would really be horrible. Once you, you know, take the cat out of that bag, you're not putting the cat back in that bag. You're not unringing that bell. It's dangerous territory and it's good that their case is falling apart. And, you know, simply put, as Edward Snowden says, this is the end of the case against Julian Assange. Yeah, well put. And he adds, if Biden continues to seek the extradition of a publisher under an indictment poisoned top to bottom with false testimony admitted by its own star witness, the damage to the United States' reputation on press freedom would last for a generation. It's unavoidable. Yeah. And he's exactly right because understand if the US government continues their extradition case against Julian Assange, especially now that the evidence and the entire argument or the basis of their suit against him has fallen apart. I mean, they're tacitly admitting that they were pursuing Julian Assange for political purposes and not legal purposes. And that's a horrible look. It is deeply authoritarian. So, you know, we're not necessarily sure what's going to happen next. Hopefully, you know, if we're being really, really optimistic, the Biden administration will drop their extradition case against Julian Assange. But I do want to share a little clip from Democracy Now where Amy Goodman actually interviewed Assange's lawyer and she kind of gives us a little bit more insight into what's happening, what we could possibly expect. This is just the latest revelation of how problematic the United States case is against Julian Assange and, in fact, baseless. Of course, as you outlined at the introduction, the evidence from Thorough Sun that was given to the United States and form the basis of the second superseding indictment, including allegations of hacking, has now been, on his own admission, demonstrated to have been fabricated. But not only did he misrepresent his access to Julian Assange and to WikiLeaks and his association with Julian Assange, he has now admitted that he made up and falsely misrepresented to the United States that there was any association with WikiLeaks and any association with hacking. So this is just the latest revelation to demonstrate why the U.S. case should be dropped. We have to begin, of course, with the free speech implications. Free speech groups, the Washington Post, the New York Times, mainstream media are unanimously against and have denounced this prosecution as a threat to freedom of speech in the United States. But leaving that aside, the factual basis for this case has completely fallen apart. And we have been calling for this case to be dropped for a very long time. And this is just the latest form of abuse demonstrated in this case that shows why it ought to be dropped. Jen Robinson, why do you believe Thorterson came forward now? He not only granted this exclusive interview to the Icelandic paper Stundan, but he also turned over never published before chat logs and new documents of his time as a WikiLeaks volunteer and talk about his actual prominence within the organization or lack of it. I can only speculate as to why he would choose to come forward now. But of course, as you know, in January, we won the extradition fight. The judge decided to refuse Julian Assange's extradition to the United States. Unfortunately, not on free speech grounds, but on humanitarian grounds associated with his mental health and the oppressive prison conditions that he would face if returned to the United States. The United States under the Trump administration sought to appeal that decision and we are still awaiting a decision from the British court as to whether permission to appeal will be granted. Pending that decision, Julian remains in prison in the United States. So this is just another indication we have been calling for this case to be dropped. We have been asking the Biden administration to drop the appeal and allow Julian to return home to his family. And I think this latest revelation will only contribute to that appeal to the Biden administration to put an end to this case. So perhaps he was motivated but on those grounds, but it's hard to say. So there it is. You know, for now we'll have to wait and see what happens. I genuinely hope that this gets the media attention that this story deserves because members of the media, you know, for all this discussion about protecting the press throughout the Trump years, you have to understand that Trump was also against Julian Assange and Biden is just continuing that legacy. So it doesn't matter that Trump is no longer in office. What's being done is deeply authoritarian and members of the media actually have an obligation. And I think it's in their own self interest to speak up and cover this in an accurate way regardless of how they may or may not feel about Julian Assange. For me, it's not about Julian Assange and his political preference. It's about press freedom in the United States and protecting the right of publications to be able to publish classified information brought to them by leakers. That is incredibly important for democracy and holding our government accountable. And we have to make sure that we preserve that right by fighting very hard to not set this new precedent that would be deeply dangerous.