All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 20, 2024 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
01:23:02
Julian Assange LIVE Hearing Reaction! Free Speech vs The Deep State #freeassange - Stay Free #308
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Goodbye America!
Goodbye!
Goodbye!
Goodbye America!
Goodbye!
Goodbye America!
Everybody should be free and equal.
Freedom of expression.
Freedom of opinion.
It's the basic thing for the democracy.
Free, free, freedom of thought!
Have fun!
Please, please, we're doing fine!
Hey!
into a post-stob Everybody should communicate together.
Everybody should be free and equal.
Freedom of expression.
Freedom of opinion.
It's the basic thing for the democracy.
We need the UNFO!
Everybody should communicate together.
Everybody should be free and equal.
Freedom of expression.
Freedom of opinion.
It's the basic thing for the democracy.
We need freedom of thought!
We'll see you next time.
Like and subject to newsletters Follow me on Twitter
And talk to me there Bye!
♪♪♪ ♪♪♪
♪♪♪ Freedom of expression!
Freedom of opinion.
It's the basic thing for the democracy.
Please, please, join us now!
Everybody should communicate together. Everybody should be free and equal. Freedom of expression.
Freedom of opinion. It's the basic thing for the democracy.
Everybody should communicate together. Everybody should be free and equal.
Freedom of expression. Freedom of opinion. It's the basic thing for the democracy.
We need freedom of expression!
Freedom of expression!
Everybody should communicate together.
Thank you.
Freedom of opinion.
It's the basic thing for the democracy.
We need freedom of thought!
...he's really coming to stun us!
He's really coming to stun us!
Thank you.
Freedom of opinion.
It's the basic things for the democracy.
Please be democrats!
Please be democrats!
Everyone is shooting!
Everyone is shooting!
Brought to you by Pfizer.
In this video, you're going to see the future.
We're getting some breaking news.
We've got a live shot there.
Hello there you awakening wonders!
Thanks for joining us for day one of the Julian Assange hearing that is being conducted in order to determine whether or not Julian Assange has the right to appeal his extradition to the United States.
I'm so grateful that you are joining us live from the Royal Courts of Justice.
Let's have a look at some of that b-roll from the course of the day.
It's been a day of celebration, it's been a day Today we'll be discussing why Julian Assange's case, and Julian Assange as a figure, is pivotal and defining when it comes to understanding our modern media landscape, how the government and state powers collaborate with corporate powers, how censorship continues to be an issue that defines our time, and how journalism has become criminalized
If indeed it seeks to speak truth to power.
The case of Julian Assange helps us to understand why the media has become what it's become in recent years.
It helps us to understand the rise of independent media.
Even what we do on this channel is beyond influence by Julian Assange.
It's in a sense architecturally determined by Julian Assange's actions and subsequent incarceration.
And over the course of today's show we'll be talking to Stella Assange and Gabriel Shipton who is Julian's brother.
They've been attending the hearing today.
We'll talk to them about what's happened.
We'll be looking in some detail at Judge Jeremy Johnson.
No, Justice Jeremy Johnson.
I'm simplifying it.
It's not like a DC comic.
It's not Judge Dredd.
Judge Jeremy Johnson is one of the presiding justices.
One of the people who will be Determining the outcome of this hearing and when you look at his previous, as it were, he has a lot of connections to WikiLeaks type stories.
He's represented the Ministry of Defense in our country, the United Kingdom.
He's represented MI6, which is one of our secret service agencies.
So is he likely to be objective?
You can let us know in the rumble chat right now, and I'm thrilled to see so many of you watching.
I'm saying hello to you, digital hippie.
I'm saying hello to you, Slappy T. I'm saying hello to you, Trish McLeod.
I'm saying hello to our many awakened wonders watching us on Locals, and if you're watching us on YouTube, we'll be available with you for the first 15 minutes, but then we will be.
You will understand why.
Exclusively streaming in that sweet, free space that is Rumble, in order to be able to discuss this complex story in depth and detail.
For example, one detail you will be unaware of, I'm sure, is that Judge Jeremy Johnson was involved in the inquiry into The deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed.
I'm not suggesting that there was anything untoward there, but it's very peculiar that people with top-secret access, a type of top-secret access that you won't even have heard of yet.
In fact, the phrase for it is extraordinary.
It's something like, what is it called?
Developed vetting.
That's the highest access to secret information you can get.
The judge, one of the judges involved today, sat With the coroners during that inquiry, so there's some extraordinary details ring and wrinkles to this case Obviously the world is currently watching even if the legacy media is not reporting We've seen some legacy media outlets out there, but you will be able to tell from looking online and looking at online
Legacy media if you still do that kind of stuff how it's being reported on Edward Snowden from exile in Russia tweeted this or posted this excuse me the outrageous part of the UK's years-long trial to condemn Julian Assange to die in an American dungeon is that the victim of his crime journalism and is a state rather than a person.
The definition of a political offence which the US-UK Extradition Treaty explicitly forbids.
This entire process might be illegal.
Julian Assange of course is inextricably linked to Edward Snowden as he helped Snowden escape US law enforcement.
I think in 2013 at the time that Edward Snowden revealed the extent to
which your government spies on you, captures your information
in order to what? Keep you safe? You let me know in the chat what you think. Here's Glenn Greenwald's post today
I don't know if anyone has any tears left to shed after the week-long media funeral for a Russian citizen
But here is what the US government government is doing to someone guilty solely of exposing U.S.
war crimes.
An extraordinary observation.
And in today's Here's the News, we'll be looking at the Navalny case and how it compares to Assange's case.
Looking at the way that it's being reported, the way that Navalny is being celebrated and perhaps utilized, and the hypocrisy that that brings to the forefront, given Assange's recent treatment.
So if you're watching us on YouTube, we'll be with you for about 15 minutes.
Remember, you can become an Awakened Wonder at any time, monthly or annually.
You can support our work so that we can continue, please, God, in the traditions established, espoused, and demonstrated so clearly and beautifully by Julian Assange.
Here's how the legacy media is reporting on today's events.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in a London courtroom today.
It's all part of a last-ditch effort to avoid extradition back here
to the US.
...coverage of this. The phrase last-ditch effort occurs in numerous outlets coverage of this story.
I think the idea is to make it seem like a foregone conclusion but even people
directly connected to this matter believe that it's unlikely given the nature of the hearing and the people
presiding over it that there will be a positive outcome.
But don't let that enable you to lose sight of how ridiculous this is. Let's see what else the legacy media is
saying.
Yeah, he faces multiple charges related to the 2010 publication of classified U.S.
military documents.
They centered on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
U.S.
prosecutors accused Assange of playing a role in the hacking of a Pentagon computer and bringing grave and imminent risk to intelligence sources.
The legal saga has continued for more than a decade, but could soon come to an end.
For more on this hearing, let's bring in international correspondent Stuart Smith in London.
Stuart, what are we expecting in court today?
Okay, let's have a look now, just for those of you that are not entirely familiar with Julian Assange's story, at sort of a brief timeline before we speak with Stella Assange and Gabriel Shipton, that's Julian's wife and leader of the campaign, as well as his brother.
First of all, So, in 2010, WikiLeaks published a series of leaks from U.S.
Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, including a video of a U.S.
Apache helicopter attacking Baghdad that killed at least nine men, including a Reuters news photographer and his driver.
Then there was a massive release that talked about...
Civilian deaths and various other, you know, the hunt for Osama Bin Laden.
Then, he lost his appeal around the sexual assault charges that emerged in Sweden.
Then, this is a significant moment, in 2013, He helped Edward Snowden flee from the US.
In 2016, WikiLeaks released 20,000, I think this is a pivotal moment, 20,000 DNC emails from the Clinton campaign manager, John Podesta, that appeared to show that the DNC favoured Clinton over her rival Bernie Sanders.
I think it's pretty safe to say that that was the case.
Now, and what I think is important about that particular aspect of the WikiLeaks lineage It demonstrates precisely how various administrations have taken the same purview when it comes to Julian Assange.
He was first pursued during the Obama administration.
He was charged with the Espionage Act during the era of Trump.
I'm sorry to tell a lot of you guys.
And it is Joe Biden that is pursuing extradition.
No one except RFK is talking about pardoning him.
We'll show you that lovely post from RFK in a moment, but I think it's germane and sensible and wise to bring in our guests Stella Assange and Gabriel Shipton while we can.
Let's have a look at, while they settle down, we'll have a look at Julian Assange talking about what it's like to be an accused person.
This is a fascinating, almost philosophical insight.
in being an accused person.
Luck in being accused of being a spy, a terrorist.
Luck in being accused of being a sex criminal.
And you might think that surely it is a shock and a devastation to wake up to find one transformed into a demon, into a thing, into an unspeakable thing, a frightening thing.
No, it's wonderful, because it is not that you change, it is that others change.
You stay the same, but you now have a gift.
You now have a superpower, the superpower of the accused.
This superpower is to reveal the true characters of others.
Who does not long from childhood for such a power, to understand The true nature of one's friends.
We are not reduced.
We the accused.
But the people and states around us are.
Great characters rise and great cultures step forward to shine.
False smiles fade.
Concealed alliances are revealed.
The timid retreat.
And love is no longer merely a word, but it is an action.
This is the superpower of the accused, and it is no more prevalent in the superpower of the accused, accused by superpowers.
There are many of us now.
Because we've come accustomed to Julian Assange's incarceration, perhaps it's easy for us to forget how significant many of his insights have been.
Not simply the WikiLeaks revelations, but Julian Assange himself as a figure, as a narrator, and as a thinker.
Significant words there that I obviously now have good cause to identify with.
I'm joined now by Stella Assange and Gabriel Shipton.
His brother and Stella is, of course, Julian's wife.
Welcome, both of you.
Thank you for having us.
I actually feel somewhat reticent and certainly cautious about how to speak to you today because it's been emotional just for us across the street observing it.
He's your brother, he's your husband.
You've been in attendance in the hearing.
The kind of enervating weight of today's events with obviously what you must have borne over the preceding years must be incredible.
Can you tell me just how the hearing went and how you are feeling?
Well, first of all, it was incredible to arrive and see such a sea of people.
I mean, the show of support has been incredible.
I only wish Julian had experienced it for himself.
Once we went in, it was, you know, the inside of the Royal Courts of Justice.
It's a kind of world in itself with its native creatures.
And the good thing about today was that we were able to air our arguments finally, because for the past couple of years, it's been...
You know, on the papers, decisions taken behind closed doors, and finally we were able to talk about the murder plot against Julian, hatched by the CIA under Mike Pompeo.
We were able to talk about the real risk to his life, all the attacks on him.
Judicial attacks and their political motivation.
So these are things that we've you know talked about in interviews but finally it's put before a courtroom and a Captive audience in the journalists who had to sit there and listen That I suppose in itself is something of a victory.
You mentioned the nature of the building itself and its imposing gothic architecture and I can only imagine that the interiors are similarly foreboding and doesn't that serve metaphorically To perfectly illustrate that it is very difficult, one might imagine, to get justice regarding information exposed about establishment corruption from within the establishment.
Gabriel, you'll be aware of course that Justice Jeremy Johnson has previously defended MI6 and the Ministry of Defence in cases that are certainly comparable to some of the leaks that Julian Assange published.
I wonder what your feelings are about the potential for a fair and judicious outcome?
Well look, Arlan, I see these courts have been weaponised against Julian.
They've been his persecutors, and willingly so, part of his persecution.
So I see that as these court hearings, whereas Julian can lose at them.
I don't think he can really, really win in any sense.
I think, you know, their role in this is to serve the United States and serve their will to keep Julian in prison, to keep him silenced, and to send that message to everyone around the world that, you know, if you do this, that's it.
You'll be in jail for five years.
No conviction.
Not serving a sentence.
We can take away all your liberties.
If you publish information that upsets us, that embarrasses us.
And I think the courts here in the UK play their role in that persecution.
I'm mindful that Julian is a human being that you both love, but for those of us, I've met Julian of course, but for those of us that don't know Julian well, it's difficult not to see him as a symbol of injustice, of how power will behave if you transgress against its aims in the manner in which Julian has done with his publishing of information that they were understandably sensitive about.
I wonder if you feel that subsequently this hearing will be reported on fairly.
Have you seen sufficient interest from the kind of legacy media organisations that were intrinsically involved with Julian's publishing at the time?
For example, the Snowden leaks, which I recognise were made to Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian at that time.
The Guardian!
Of course, Julian facilitated Edward Snowden's evasion of pursuing forces.
I wonder if you feel that The Guardian, the BBC, CNN, what have become referred to in this space as the legacy media, have been reporting on this responsibly?
Well, no, that's the answer.
It's improved A lot in some respects with some newspapers.
Their irresponsibility, their dereliction of duty as far as their journalism is concerned has in fact led to Julian's imprisonment.
If they had critically engaged with the persecution and its many different layers and Aspects over the years then Julian would never have ended up in prison.
They wouldn't have spent a single day in prison So I really see the media as complicit in his persecution.
They were willing Willingly complicit because they didn't like him for other reasons.
However once the indictment came down and eventually once you know the the Arguments had been aired in court and they had been analyzed by the Press freedom groups and lawyers inside the Guardian and so on, they were forced to defend him.
Because Julian was attacked, he was indicted as a journalist, not as a whistleblower, not as anything other than a journalist.
And once they understood that actually he was being targeted as a journalist, they had to defend him.
Today you heard your lawyers presumably, as you explained Stella, have the opportunity to lay out your case, Julian's case, and you said that that has been cathartic and beneficial and helpful.
And those of you watching this right now, please be patient with us given our sound issues.
We're like, we're just in some room opposite the Royal Courts of Justice.
We're renegade guerrilla journalists right now, which is precisely what's required in order to report on a story of this nature and a story of this magnitude and a story that the legacy media have been deliberately oppressing and reframing in a manner to make it unappealing to people.
So do forgive us if we have Small technical difficulties, we assure you that we're working just as hard as we can to get this information to you as directly and as freely and with as few interventions and as little censorship as possible, which is no censorship.
What are you hoping for tomorrow, Stella?
What will define the hearing tomorrow?
Do you anticipate getting a verdict tomorrow or do you think that you'll be kicked down the road a little bit?
How do you feel it will tomorrow play out?
Well, my sense being in the courtroom was that we steamrolled.
Over the whole courtroom.
I mean, the judges were... I think they had been exposed to some of the arguments for the very first time, and you could just see them trying to square things, because it really is that outrageous.
And so I saw these moments of, well, you know, this could be the turning point.
That's my impression from being inside the courtroom.
But then my rational side takes over and I have had this feeling before and it's a political case and it's not about the merits of the arguments.
Now, of course, I always... I hope I'm wrong, but of course Julian should win this round and it should fall apart and, you know, maybe Maybe.
Anything's possible.
But of course, the stakes are so high because if they find against him, and they could find against him tomorrow, you know, if they decided, well, we're not even going to entertain this.
We've already made our decision.
He could be on a plane this week.
It's interesting how... God, that's a terrifying thought, Stella.
It's interesting how low the threshold has become Because even for Julian Assange to be granted an appeal at this point would feel like something of a success and I'm astonished to hear you say that at points watching Justice Jeremy Johnson and Dame Victoria Sharpe that it seemed at times that they were hearing some of the DLs
Fresh.
Because I was trying to imagine what the perspective is of people that seek to persecute and ultimately extradite and continue to incarcerate and ultimately, perhaps tacitly, execute Julian Assange.
And sorry if that sounds melodramatic, but as we've just heard, the CIA did plot to have Julian Assange murdered.
But their perspective, I suppose, is, oh, well, what it is is WikiLeaks published information that put service personnel's lives at risk, exposed the American military and the American population to danger, and therefore, of course, he should be extradited to our allies in the United States to face justice under the Espionage Act where he was first pursued under Barack Obama.
Convicted, not convicted excuse me, charged under Trump and is now being extradited under Biden which in itself is an astonishing litmus test of how Apparently differing administrations tend to concur on truly important issues, therefore demonstrating that we have very little choice at all, particularly in that arena.
Did you also get that sense, Gabriel, that their perspective is one that would be alien to most people that operate in our space?
A sense that Julian Assange is not a publisher and a journalist, he is Well, something akin to a hacker, a terrorist.
Is that the... What did you think?
Yeah, I got a bit of that vibe.
I think this time around, I felt that these judges were sort of on their best behaviour.
You know, they knew that there were thousands of people outside.
They knew that you're here across the road.
covering this.
There's been quite a bit of media attention, you know, from the mainstream press as well.
Just last week the Australian Parliament voted on a motion and they voted, two thirds of the Australian Parliament voted on this motion, voted yes on this motion, and that motion had three very strong points in it.
That Julian was an award-winning journalist, that he's being held in relation to exposing the misconduct of the USA and that the UK and the US should bring this to an end and send him back to Australia.
So you've got this political pressure that is mounting on the UK courts here and I got the feeling that these judges were aware of that, that they were Paying a different kind of attention.
It might have just been lip service, but previous hearings have been much more combative.
The judges have been much more combative.
The judges were showing a bit more genuine inquiry, I felt, this time.
And I think that is because of this support from out front of the court.
And the media coverage and the political support that's sort of all pushed into today.
Even the police, you know, even the police out here, for the first time I've ever seen, they were being helpful.
Oh wow!
Well, we have many friends and community members that are in various police forces across the world, and we know that many members of the police force are motivated by a love of community, duty and service, and of course that's precisely how it should be.
One political figure, and it is indeed encouraging, Gabriel, to hear you speak about the sort of turning of the tide in your native land, and to see some support emerging from Australia, particularly given that Australia in the past few years It seems to have become increasingly governed by peculiar globalist edicts around a whole variety of subjects, so that is encouraging.
But one political figure who has been outspoken in his support of Julian Assange is RFK.
He did this post just yesterday on X. Let's have a look at this together.
Six.
I'm pressing that, guys.
Play that in.
Six on the deck.
The RFK post.
Do excuse me once again.
So number 6 is RFK.
If you can play 6 on my deck.
Number 6 on my deck and my deck's not working.
Do forgive me Stella and Gabriel.
We're out on them.
Now it's your world, mate.
Let's go full screen on it and play on it to give us a break.
He's stood against government corruption.
He's battled for all of our freedoms and he made the tremendous sacrifice where he now is jailed and faces life in prison and an extradition to the United States.
The urgency to pardon him cannot wait.
It can't wait till I become president.
We need to get it done now.
He signed the petition.
Urging President Biden to immediately pardon Julian Assange.
Thank you all very much.
There he is.
Because the goal is not... Hey!
Kill that, thanks.
Excuse me raising my voice, but it was required in that moment.
So, Gabriel, Stella, thank you so much for joining us.
Do you feel that the kind of support that Bobby Kennedy just espoused may contribute to a general prevailing positive public opinion?
Because one of the speeches I heard today, and there were some great speeches, was people saying that there are two superpowers in the world.
There's the American military-industrial complex, and their foreign policy and then there is public opinion and we are seeing I believe public opinion finally alter and change.
I'm like as well myself like a lot of people I think feel really scared about Julian Assange and I think for a long time people felt really scared.
Let me know what you think in the chat about supporting Julian Assange because of course he was initially accused of sexual assault and rape.
Indeed that's why I showed that speech because I thought that was fascinating.
He's The way that he spoke about being accused and how empowering that can be, I thought it was very moving.
And then subsequently he's just been sort of maligned and made a pariah so aggressively, excessively and continually that it's understandable if people move between accepting that vilification and indifference.
The world is so full of spectacle, so gilded and delightful.
Another day, another ceremony, another Golden Globe, another Oscar, another appearance from a state-sponsored political activist.
Do you feel that what we might be witnessing now is the ability of public opinion at large to influence matters even this significant where there is a clear agenda that is typically very difficult to interrupt?
I have the feeling now, it's very similar to when I started university in 2002, I mean this was just, you know, on the cusp of the Iraq invasion, just after Afghanistan, you know.
Just a year after September 11th and there was huge mobilization on the streets and there was a lot of political energy and there was a lot of skepticism and there was a lot of anti-war sentiment and people organized and there was a sense of the power of the people and of coming together and then and that is partly what led to WikiLeaks as a project, that mood to end the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan, hold governments to account, expose the torture regime and the
way that they had basically engineered going into wars.
So there was a different mood, and that gave rise to WikiLeaks.
And then I think that the 2010s were...
Thank you.
We lost a lot of that.
But I feel like we're regaining it.
And it's crossing over on a whole lot of different issues.
So tomorrow, whose case do you hear tomorrow?
If you had the opportunity to outline your case, or at least your lawyers did.
Tomorrow, do you hear the States?
The United States?
Who is advocating for the extradition?
And is that what you hear tomorrow?
Yeah, that's right.
The prosecutor's case tomorrow.
Yeah, well, they'll argue against Julian's appeal points and probably try and pour a bucket of shit all over it.
I imagine you're bringing us an Australian perspective to this global news event.
They'll probably pour a bucket of shit all over it.
Yeah, I imagine that is, to a degree, what will happen.
Do you anticipate getting a verdict tomorrow or do you try not to think in those terms these days?
I don't know.
Anything can happen.
I hope they think about it for a few days, at least.
But you know, tomorrow's going to be nasty.
It's going to be duplicitous.
It's going to be, you know, the way murderers try to pretend like they're not murdering.
So yeah, so that's what awaits tomorrow.
Well, we'll be here tomorrow.
Hopefully we'll be speaking with you again.
And in all sincerity, I'll be praying for a positive outcome, the deserved outcome for Julian Assange, who is a hero and because of whom we have a deeper understanding of the way that global power operates, how both Political parties in an apparently bipartisan state often support the same ideas.
How there may often be claims of caring about justice and democracy, but when it comes to true justice, democracy, transparency, clarity and freedom of information, We get to see the true colours of the global establishment in part because of Julian Assange's reporting and in part because of his current predicament.
Thank you, Gabriel.
It's lovely to meet you.
Thanks for joining us today.
And Stella, it's always such a joy to be in your company.
Thank you for coming today.
Thanks.
Hey, guys, one of the things that's difficult to ignore is the ongoing and understandable grief over the death in custody of Alexei Navalny.
There's been global outcry from political leaders and calls for, predictably, further military funding to Ukraine.
That's the solution.
It's not as if Western leaders are complicit in the imprisonment and possible assassination of our spoken critics of their actions in the form of Gonzalo Lira and, of course, Julian Assange.
Here's the news.
No, here's the effing news.
Here's the video.
No, here's the effing news.
The death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny has caused an outcry in the West as well as calls for further
funding for Ukraine in their war against Russia.
What, though, is the position of the West when it comes to outspoken critics of establishment policies, whether it's Gonzalo Lira or Julian Assange?
Where's that conversation?
Let's have it now.
It's odd that Alexei Navalny has died at this time, just after Putin has been interviewed by Tucker.
It's extraordinary and it's sad.
Let's have a look at Alexei Navalny, what his politics were.
Let's have a look at how the death is being utilised by the establishment media.
And let's have a look too to see if there's any hypocrisy in this coverage, given that Julian Assange is still in prison in Belmarsh without trial, essentially for being critical of the policies of the West, in particular with regard to military action abroad.
Let's see if we can hold all of this in our heads simultaneously and assess Whether or not this death, which still as yet may not be a murder, I mean it's quite likely it is a murder.
He's died in prison.
Putin is the sort of person that would have people murdered.
There's no question about that.
But is it being utilised to legitimise further expenditure and funding of the Ukraine war?
And is it hypocritical to declare that this is morally outrageous while Julian Assange is still in prison and Gonzalo Lira died in a Ukrainian jail?
Now where outrage is growing following the death of Alexei Navalny, the staunch Putin critic who Russian authorities say died suddenly Friday in a Siberian prison.
The death of Alexei Navalny yesterday was a reminder of the extraordinary brutality of Putin and his government.
Whatever story they tell, let us be clear Russia is responsible.
That really led to that conclusion.
And again, it's probably true.
But for all of that piety and condemnation, do you see an absence of appropriate piety when it comes to the case of Julian Assange, who's still in Belmarsh prison right now, whose hearing is this week, which will not be covered by the Western media?
To remind you, what Julian Assange did was reported on war crimes of the West, primarily in the Middle East.
For this, he's been imprisoned in various forms for about 10 years now.
What's interesting here is not whether or not Alexei Navalny was murdered by Putin.
Let's assume he was.
Let's say that Putin is definitely a war criminal, definitely a tyrant, definitely murders people in jail.
Let's analyze the position from which the West is criticizing Russia and Putin.
Is it one of moral clarity, purity, or is it from a position of hypocrisy?
We should be clear about what has happened here.
Putin's Russia imprisoned him, trumped up charges against him.
I guess what you could do is just imagine in your mind they were talking about Julian Assange and then is there at any point a contradiction there?
Trumped up charges against him?
Accusations appeared out of thin air?
Essentially the argument we're making is this.
Are our governments in a position to wage war or a proxy war at least with Russia?
On the basis of moral reasons when the conduct that they are condemning is so similar to their own conduct.
Sent him to a Arctic penal colony and now he's tragically died and we should hold Putin accountable for this and no one should be in any doubt about the dreadful nature of Putin's regime in Russia.
That's what true morals and principles mean.
That the values and principles can be applied to any situation.
They're not used as a weapon.
Aha!
Right, this guy's dead.
Brilliant.
Remember, we hate Putin, don't we?
And we can use this to amplify our narrative that we should perpetuate this profitable war.
If they were real principles, they would be talking about Julian Assange and Gonzalo Lira in the same way.
Oh yeah, should Julian Assange really be in Belmar?
She hasn't had a trial or anything.
Those would be the kind of conversations you'd hear David Cameron or Joe Biden publicly having.
You won't.
And there's a reason for that.
You know, like millions of people around the world, I'm literally both not surprised and outraged by the news.
Reported death of Alexei Navalny.
We all know that this is about utility.
We all know that Joe Biden didn't have a genuine emotional reaction.
What?
Alexei Navalny's dead.
Oh no, he was my favorite opponent of Russia's tyranny.
Remember, the United States have definitely participated in the murder of political opponents, whether that's Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi.
These people were just like publicly, almost evangelically murdered as a result of becoming enemies of American foreign interests, in addition to the crimes exposed by Julian Assange, whose plight is not so openly discussed.
So if this is about Morin, we should be not surprised because we knew how bad Putin was, but we should be outraged because we knew how bad Putin is.
What's your position?
What is your position on Assange?
He bravely stood up to the corruption, the violence.
Like Assange?
All the bad things that the Putin government was doing.
In response, Putin had him poisoned, he had him arrested, he had him prosecuted for fabricated crimes.
Assange, Assange.
He sentenced him to prison.
He was held in isolation.
Like, at what point could you not apply these words to Julian Assange?
Like, because he's not Russian?
Is that what it is?
Even all that didn't stop him from calling out for his lies.
Even in prison.
He was a powerful voice for the truth, which is kind of amazing when you think about it.
Yeah, it is amazing.
How can you do that speech and not in the back of your mind go, oh no, we're going to have to do something about Julian Assange.
Yeah, but we can't, can we?
Because we're going to continue to wage convenient wars around the world for decades to come.
And indeed, this is one of those wars.
The war with Russia is one of those wars.
This is not about whether or not Putin is a tyrant.
Let's say he is.
This is not about whether Putin murdered Navalny.
Let's say he did.
This is about is the West in any position to make such a judgment and is there utility in this death and the way it's being reported, i.e.
is it being used to drum up further funding, more goodwill from the public to perpetuate this very expensive war.
And he could have lived safely in exile after the assassination attempt on him in 2020.
Which nearly killed him, I might add.
A bit like the CIA plot against Julian Assange.
No.
No.
Nothing like that.
In what way?
We weren't able to execute our plot.
So you're saying that Russian secret services are more effective than American secret services?
No!
Russian authorities are going to tell their own story.
Make no mistake.
Make no mistake.
Putin is responsible for Navalny's death.
Putin is responsible.
What has happened to Navalny is yet more proof of Putin's brutality.
This tragedy reminds us of the stakes of this moment.
Reminds me of Julian Assange's case, to tell you the absolute truth.
Now, the death of Navalny is obviously sad.
That's a human being with a family who's been, it seems, unjustly imprisoned and perhaps Even murdered potentially by the tyrannical Vladimir Putin as part of his criminal invasion in Ukraine.
All of these things can be true but what also remains true is that the military-industrial complex and the establishment elite behave in a comparable way which makes all of this sudden lacrimose affection for Alexei Navalny seem a little insincere and exploitative.
We have to provide the funding so Ukraine can keep defending itself.
Oh, right.
I suppose, if only there was something we could do.
Keep funding that war that's going so well.
Yeah, yeah, because I suppose now Russia don't have nuclear weapons still and NATO involvement.
That's all wiped away, is it, with Navalny?
Against Putin's vicious onslaughts and war crimes.
Okay, vicious onslaughts and war crimes.
So you've heard the establishment's perspective, let's see if there's an alternative perspective available to us.
The entire Western political media class are currently rending their garments about the prison death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny and are being joined by the propaganda adult citizenry of the Western Empire.
Meanwhile, Julian Assange's last-ditch effort to appeal against extradition to the United States is coming up in a few days with a tiny fraction of the attention.
Do you know what?
It would almost be worth them saying, we're going to pardon Julian Assange because this has really affected us, the Deaf and Nouveau, and it's made us realise that actually we do comparable things.
So because we want to be able to perpetuate this forever war, we are willing to sacrifice one of our treasured injustices in order just to keep this profitable war going.
Navalny's past release of confidential documents from the Russian government and state-run energy companies had drawn comparisons to Assange's work at WikiLeaks, which exposed US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as international corruption.
That's why Assange is in prison.
Not because he put service personnel in harm's way.
The Pentagon have been unable to demonstrate that WikiLeaks put any service personnel in any danger.
Assange is currently languishing in a maximum security prison in London, awaiting a hearing next week that will determine whether he can appeal his extradition to the United States.
Stella Assange warned Thursday that her husband will die if he's extradited.
That's why we are covering the hearing today and tomorrow, to bring as much attention to this significant case as possible.
Whenever I see people screaming about the persecution of journalists and political prisoners in other countries, when they themselves live in a nation whose government is persecuting Julian Assange, I can't help but think of Matthew, chapter 7, verses 4 and 5.
How can you say to your brother, let me take the speck out of your eye, when all the time there's a plank in your own eye?
You, hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
And I suppose the point of scripture is to point us towards principles that will be applicable in our own life, even if that's at the scale of geopolitics.
You can't bemoan the death of Navalny in that fashion if you're not willing to address the case of Julian Assange.
The death of Navalny in an Arctic prison on Friday has been immediately integrated into a massive anti-Russia propaganda campaign by the Biden administration and its NATO allies, along with their associated media outlets.
Without an autopsy, let alone a fact-grounded analysis of the circumstances of Navalny's death, the unified position from the NATO powers is Putin killed Navalny.
For the purposes of our analysis, we can accept that to be the perspective.
We can say, OK, Putin killed Navalny.
Let's focus now, because we don't live in Russia.
Our problems are not Russia.
I don't believe that Russian expansionism will extend to other NATO countries and ultimately lead to the takeover of the United States and the United Kingdom.
I think that they are a regional superpower that might lead To aggression, as in the case of Ukraine.
And that doesn't mean that's none of our business, but it does mean essentially we should be supporting diplomacy rather than military escalation and focusing on our own nations and our own democracy and our own infrastructure, particularly with the resources that are being spent on perpetuating this war, which I believe to be unwinnable.
Let me know in the chat what you think.
US President Joe Biden declared on Friday that there is no doubt that the death of Navalny is a consequence of something Putin and his thugs did.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken proclaimed that it underscores the weakness and rot at the heart of the system that Putin has built.
Russia is responsible for this.
French President Emmanuel Macron greeting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Paris to sign a military alliance and offering him hundreds of millions of euros in aid denounced Russia.
Macron stressed his anger and indignation at Navalny's death.
Amidst this propaganda offensive, it is first necessary to stress that there is no precise knowledge as to how Navalny died.
Russia's Federal Penitentiary Service reported that Navalny lost consciousness after a walk and efforts to revive him were not successful.
Navalny, according to reports, may have died of a blood clot.
It would be a terrible irony if he died as a result of vaccine injury after all of this outrage from the establishment.
What killed him?
I don't know.
He seemed to sort of suddenly develop myocarditis.
Oh, OK.
Is there any medications that he was on?
Hmm, there were.
This would not absolve the Russian government of culpability.
Navalny died in a Russian prison, and the Putin regime was responsible for his well-being and safety.
This, however, does not warrant the claim, in the absence of evidence, that Navalny was murdered.
Yes, I suppose that would be a sensible way to conduct this matter.
Let's first get some evidence and then see where we are after that.
Or, you could get every Western leader to go onto the news and immediately say, Russia murdered this person.
Particularly enthusiastic was Kamala Harris, who was talking as if she was like, oh, I witnessed, I mean, I watched him.
Oh my God, oh, what are you doing to him?
Oh God, don't give him the booster shot!
One element of the propaganda campaign is the glorification of the deceased.
Alexei Navalny was a champion of democracy, declared the Washington Post editorial board.
The greatest advocate for Russian democracy is dead, ran an opinion piece in the British Telegraph.
The Atlantic Council, which is closely connected to the US State Department, and funded in extraordinary ways.
Have a look at the Atlantic Council.
It's not just like, we're the Atlantic Council.
We're just here at the Atlantic, counselling people.
It's funded by like the weapons industry and stuff.
It's not a think tank.
It's a tank tank.
The Atlantic Council, which is closely connected to the US State Department, proclaimed that Navalny's martyrdom will magnify his moral leadership immeasurably.
Navalny may be a hero.
I'm really not questioning that.
I'm aware that there's like a family left behind and a widow and all that kind of stuff, so I don't mean to be glib or mean or rude about it.
I'm just pointing out that this is being exploited.
That, as Jim Morrison once said, death makes angels of us all.
And in this case, it makes a useful tool for the Western media and establishment interest to further pursue a war that may not be beneficial for you or me.
Navalny, however, was not a representative of a democratic faction of the Russian political system.
He entered politics on the far right.
Oh, so you like the far right sometimes.
Joining the free market Yabloko party.
Great Bolshevik Yablokos to you!
And its union of right forces in 2000.
In 2007, he co-founded the National Russian Liberation Movement, an anti-immigrant chauvinist outfit.
So he's a bit like Trump, who you also love, right?
In 2021, Amnesty International temporarily stripped Navalny of the designation it had given him as a prisoner of conscience for advocating racial killings of people from Central Asia and the Caucasus, whom he once referred to as cockroaches.
Only after he entered into opposition to Putin did Navalny decide, for political reasons, to find another, more politically palatable basis to choose the all-purpose banner of anti-corruption.
In the context of the bitter conflicts within the Russian oligarchy, Navalny represented a faction of Russia's capitalist oligarchy that wants closer relations with the United States.
To point out that Navalny may once have been a right-wing politician, to point out that Navalny had relationships with the United States or was willing to alter his political views in order to be a more amenable ally to the United States, which, by the way, would be a good reason for Putin to regard him as an opponent, is not to say that he deserved to die or that Putin didn't have him murdered.
But it would be naive, wouldn't it, to neglect our knowledge of the 2014 coup in Ukraine.
And how America operates in Latin and Central America with the installation of favorable political leaders or how specifically the United States operated after the 2014 coup installing favorable leaders in the Ukraine that were antagonistic to Putin and to deny the possibility that there is some involvement would be naive.
Again the same as with the murder you should wait for the evidence before asserting that he was a CIA asset.
The same way you should wait for the evidence before asserting that he was murdered.
But it seems likely that he was murdered by Putin.
But what else seems likely on the basis of what we know about America's conduct in what it regards as hostile territories where it has a political and financial agenda?
If Navalny was murdered, there are many possible suspects, including some agency of the Russian state acting with or without Putin's knowledge.
In recent months, the Kremlin has attacked many opposition figures, even if they had no short-term prospects in next month's presidential elections.
However, one would have to ask, why would Putin take action against Navalny now?
The Russian president has been working to ingratiate himself with a faction of the political establishment in the United States.
His recent interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson was devoted largely to pleading for a negotiated settlement over the war in Ukraine.
In the aftermath of the interview, Putin went out of his way to praise Biden, saying he would prefer his election to that of Trump.
If it were foul play, There are others who could be responsible, including factional opponents of Putin who see Navalny's death as helpful for their own cause.
We can't continue to bring you this potentially paradigm-shattering information without the support of our sponsors.
We've got one for you right now.
Stay to the end, please.
Is it me, or does the future feel more insecure and uncertain?
Wars, pandemics, lies, trickery.
For those of you that are in the United States, there is a way to secure your hard-earned nest egg.
American Heart for Gold makes it easy to protect your savings and retirement accounts with physical gold and silver.
With one phone call they can have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door or inside a qualifying retirement account like your IRA or 401k.
American Heart for Gold is the highest rate firm in the United States with an A-plus rating from the BBB, that's the Better Business Bureau, and thousands of satisfied clients right now.
They'll give you up to $10,000 of free silver on your first qualifying order.
This offer, I'm sorry to tell you, is only for customers from the United States of America.
Call 866-505-8315.
That's 866-505-8315.
Or simply text BRAND to 99-88-99.
Then they'll know we sent you.
Get up to $5,000 in silver and protect your future in this crazy, crazy world with some solid, precious metals literally made in stars.
Now let's get back to the content.
All of this, however, is entirely speculative.
More important is how is it being used by the US and NATO powers, above all the Biden administration, to intensify the campaign for an escalation of the war against Russia.
Well, we saw in Biden's speech that after some sentimental words about Navalny, who I personally have never heard him mentioned before, not that that means he hasn't mentioned him, of course, don't watch everything that's on the television, He ultimately ended the speech by saying, that is why we have to continue to fund the war between Ukraine and Russia.
We have to provide the funding so Ukraine can keep defending itself.
And in a sense, there's a great deal of complexity that has been obfuscated and ignored throughout this war.
And I would say the approach to this death, or indeed murder, is similarly opaque and similarly exploitative, and given the case of Julian Assange, hypocritical.
The immediate demand from the Biden administration, the Democrats and sections of the Republican Party is for the passage by Congress of a bill containing tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine.
Here, what is most striking is the staggering hypocrisy of the imperialist powers.
Biden and his NATO allies furiously denounced the Putin regime's treatment of Navalny while subjecting Julian Assange, a genuine champion of human rights, to the most brutal and life-threatening conditions.
Assange has been kept in Belmarsh Prison in southeastern London under conditions that the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture described as ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, and what could amount to psychological torture.
He was the subject of assassination plots orchestrated by the CIA.
He has been systematically denied medical care and the ability to communicate, even with his lawyers.
And this week, he has a hearing that could decide his final appeal against extradition to the United States.
So I suppose we ought be sympathetic to the death in custody of Navalny, but we also ought be aware that there are figures within our own political landscape who are suffering in a way that is similar, comparable, and has to be addressed if we're to have any right to this kind of zealous mourning on the subject of Navalny.
And what of the many prisoners still rotting in Guantanamo Bay after decades of brutal detention and torture?
That phrase, whataboutism, people go, you can't just engage in whataboutism.
What that means is addressing the impossibility of moral piety if you yourself are responsible and culpable of the same kind of moral transgressions that you are condemning other people.
That's not a ridiculous position to take.
Whataboutism.
Like, what they're trying to do is nullify it.
They're like, that's just whataboutism.
That's just whataboutism.
If Julian Assange is to be detained and ultimately extradited, then you do not have the right to say, oh, Putin, you monster!
You just have to go, yeah, I agree with that bit of imprisonment, not that bit of imprisonment.
I like that torture, but not that torture.
This hypocrisy is fine.
That hypocrisy isn't.
That's my position.
I don't have any values.
I have an agenda.
There.
What about that?
The only purpose of the propaganda campaign over Navalny's death is to justify the further escalation of war against Russia.
So, Navalny's death, like the death of any human, is bad.
How is the establishment exploiting this death?
How are the media reporting on this death?
How are they reporting on the imprisonment and potential extradition of Julian Assange?
If you see any disparities there, That is hypocrisy.
And hypocrisy is evidence of an agenda.
That's why we are covering Julian Assange's hearing.
That is why we are praying that Julian Assange, as a person who exposed the crimes of others, rather than committed crimes himself, ought be freed.
And while we should mourn the death in custody of Alexei Navalny, we ought be a little sceptical about the Western leaders queuing up to say what a hero he was and how is this terrible and further evidence of Putin's tyranny.
All of which could be true.
On our channel, we are not pro-Putin.
We are not anti-Ukraine.
We are pro-truth, pro-freedom, pro-change, anti-establishment.
But that's just what I think.
Let me know what you think in the chat.
See you in a second.
We have Antoine Weil with us, an international human rights lawyer who's representing Julian Assange in this matter, who's just come to join us directly from the Royal Courts of Justice.
Thank you for coming on, Antoine.
It's very kind of you.
Thank you.
How did that hearing go by your appraisal?
Do you feel that you were able to render the case effectively?
Stella, in particular, when she was just here, said that it was rewarding and cathartic for her to hear the arguments laying out, the CIA plot, the exploitation of the law, the possibility that this is, as I think it was Edward Snowden's point, I think what Stella says is true.
state, not an individual, and you cannot use the Espionage Act against an individual.
But you're the human rights lawyer, Antoine, how did it go and what do you anticipate?
I think what Stella says is true, it's interesting and it's something that is striking to be
able to, in a way, in a day, hearing all the arguments that have been worked by the lawyers,
by everyone for years, because it's a case that has been going on for years.
Uh...
Each time we have this kind of hearings, because you know it's not the first time that we are discussing this case in front of the High Court of Justice, we have the feeling that it's starting again and again.
So tomorrow will be a second set of arguments.
It's very difficult to understand where it's going at.
And I want everyone to understand that the simple object of today's hearing is to know whether we will grant a right of appeal to Julian Assange.
So in terms of legal rights, it's a little bit striking and frustrating that there is a debate over whether or not he can appeal a decision.
And it's rather technical, but I think today that the arguments were made to have the judge analyse the full story.
Is it frustrating precisely because The right to appeal ought be presumed.
Well, it's frustrating because we're not even on the merits of the case.
One of the things that is particular to this case is that this person has been at least detained for four years without ever having a real trial.
And our concern, and this is one of the lines of opposition with the United States, is that we believe that if he were to be extradited to the United States, he could not have a fair trial.
So, in a way, it's difficult to be in a trial in England, that is not the real trial that should happen.
We are not discussing the merits of the case, we're not discussing the evidence, we're not
discussing the testimonials, we are only discussing whether or not Assange is in a position to be
extradited to the United States.
The case hasn't even started because the case has never been actually instructed yet.
It's extraordinary and perhaps even Dante-esque that there are these concentric circles of judicial
theatre required even to get to the point where you are able to make the case.
Have Julian Assange's human rights already been significantly infringed upon?
Is there a case for his solitary confinement being an infringement of his human rights?
His incarceration without trial?
Is there already significant reason to believe that he has been transgressed against?
Yeah, I mean, it has been even decided by the United Nations that he has been psychologically tortured, that he's arbitrarily detained.
His freedom of expression is today reduced to nothing because, as you saw, he wasn't even in the court today.
It's impossible to communicate to the world, to have a family life.
So the fact that Assange has been deprived of these fundamental rights since several years is, I would say, is a fact now.
The question here is that it's part of the system and part of this accusation to create
a legal labyrinth, a legal path, where everyone gets lost in a way.
Today we are only commenting a decision regarding an appeal for an extradition trial.
And at the end of the day, for nine years, Julian Assange has never been able to state
clearly what is his defense.
Several persons would say, why doesn't he come to America to face a real trial?
It's because the truth is that we believe, I mean, we believe America is a great system,
a great system of institutions.
But we don't believe that Assange could have a fair trial in America for the reason that
today America wishes to be the victim, the prosecutor, and the judges of this case.
And this cannot happen, actually.
You can't be at the same time arguing you are the victim of someone, prosecuting him, and aiming to judge him.
So, I mean, as an international lawyer, as someone who is in a way impartial towards the system, we have no concern with America as such, we believe that it's not the right forum, it's not the right way to proceed, and I think this is one of the main arguments that were raised today, under the heads that it's a political charge raised against Julian Assange, and that it's striking, for example, for a French lawyer, that you could be Prosecuted, detained, even extradited for an offense that could be summarized as having published real information.
This is, I think, what the case is about.
Can you basically prosecute, put someone in prison for establishing that he has published true information?
This peculiar hydra that you have described, where the American establishment simultaneously plays the role of victim and persecutor, does it have a comparison in today's proceedings when a figure like Justice Jeremy Johnson has such strong establishment ties to MI6 and the Ministry of Defence through previous cases that he has fought?
And doesn't that more broadly, Antoine, Point to the impossibility of the establishment granting a truly judicious process to a person who is perhaps defined by his anti-establishment actions.
Well, I think that if you are a lawyer, it's because you believe in the law.
Otherwise, you do something else.
And I think that there are several ways of seeing a past experience of a judge.
But while we are in the judicial process, I think it's the duty of lawyers not to comment it and to hope That we are before an independent justice and we are before judges that are able to exercise their free minds regarding the arguments that are submitted to them.
This is a code of law.
Otherwise, it's more like a debate or something that is more in the political field.
So we believe that England has independent institutions.
We believe that the experience of these judges can be a strength also because he's aware of the process of the fact that are discussed.
It's better perhaps to have an experienced judge than a judge that doesn't know what he's talking about.
And I think we can't infer that there is a bias or a prejudice.
This is what the law is about.
We instruct a case.
This case will be motivated.
We will be able to see what the decision is taken and the motivation.
If the motivation is the right one in law, I think we have all our chances to win.
That's extraordinary.
Thank you very much Antoine for articulating that and it is encouraging to hear at least that these institutions in ideal are actually have the potential to function rather well and I suppose we operate in a space where we assume corruption and hypocrisy No, I don't want to sound naive on that.
you're rather open-minded and somewhat regal, if undoubtedly French, perspective on legal
systems.
No, I don't want to sound naive on that.
I mean, the case of Julian Assange shows the behind of the cards.
And I think no one can be naive after so many years.
But if we don't expect in the legal system, I think that we don't have any weapons anymore.
So it has been a battle for years.
We won several sides, we lost others, and we are at an edge now.
We hope that the judicial system in England will depart from this position because we do believe That is a political activation.
We do believe that the situation of health of Julian Assange doesn't allow for him to go to the United States.
And we do believe that he would not be submitted to a fair trial.
I'm sure that Julian Assange would be free, would love to be able to explain himself on what is this case about.
And I want to repeat again.
That what is striking to an independent observer is the fact that no matter what you think about Assange, no matter what you think about the national interest protection, at the end of the day he's a journalist who has published information.
And it's true that it's difficult for an independent international lawyer to understand what is the real American psyche on it, because In other democratic countries, such as the United States, we don't believe that a journalist could be prosecuted likewise.
Yes.
Thank you very much, Antoine, for joining us today.
Let us remind ourselves of why we are here, because Julian Assange is appealing for the... he's having a hearing in order to have the right to appeal against his extradition.
And let's hear Julian Assange now speaking on both the subject of media and the subject of war.
Thanks once again for joining us, Antoine.
Let's have a look at that.
What we have is that nearly every war that has started in the past 50 years has been
a result of media lies.
Thanks.
The media could have stopped it if they had searched deep enough.
If they hadn't reprinted government propaganda, they could have stopped it.
But what does that mean?
Well, that means, basically, populations don't like wars.
And populations have to be fooled into wars.
Populations don't willingly and with open eyes go into a war.
So, if we have a good media environment, then we'll also have a peaceful environment.
If that wasn't enough international flavour for this wonderful live stream, where we hope to present to you a variety of arguments that demonstrate the necessity for Julian Assange to have the right to have an appeal against his extradition to the United States of America, we're now bringing you two members of the European Parliament, Clare Daly and Mick Wallace.
Clare, it's lovely to see you again.
Thank you for coming.
My pleasure.
And Mick, it's lovely to meet you properly on camera and to take a glance at what perhaps could be my future.
What?
I see you as a potential, just a man slightly further down the road when it comes to hair pigmentation and perhaps other aspects of life as well.
The difference between the two of us is now, I never put anything in mine, you're dying yours.
Dammit, this is all natural.
You can see that from my beard, dammit.
Both of you were inside the hearing today.
Claire, would you please tell us, we've spoken to Stella Assange, we've spoken to Julian's brother, we've just spoken to Antoine Weil.
There seemed to be a degree of optimism, at least in the fact that they've been able to articulate their side of the case.
Yeah, and I mean, look, if we were there as lay people, I suppose, with other members of the public, so we wouldn't be legal experts.
But yeah, they got to make the points.
But these were the, I suppose, the defence points, if you like.
Tomorrow we'll have the other side.
So it's kind of always easier when you have your own side speaking.
But I thought they did quite well.
But I suppose the question that we all ask ourselves is, you know, Is this going to be a legal decision at the end of the day?
I suppose you mean a legal decision as opposed to a political decision.
Having just spoken to Antoine Weil, it was interesting to hear how he articulated the function of the law.
Given that you are, as well as members of the European Parliament, lay people, what was it that compelled you to attend today's hearing, Mick?
And may I ask you to use that microphone?
How did you personally feel that it went and what are your concerns about tomorrow?
Yeah, well first of all, we're here because we think this is an incredibly important case.
It's gone on over 10 years now.
I think it was around 2012, 2011 when he first went into the Ecuadorian embassy.
He spent five years now in Belmarsh and he's locked up and facing extradition to America because he's told the truth about US and NATO war crimes, specifically in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And Western countries like the US and sadly the Europeans and the UK don't want people like Assange telling the truth about war crimes being committed by Western powers because that's what he did.
And he exposed them 2010 with the files from Chelsea Manning.
People thought maybe what the Americans are doing in Iraq, maybe it's not so bad.
But what Assange did through WikiLeaks, he exposed the fact that this was horrific.
A million citizens died in Iraq and we never showed any interest in those citizens.
But Julian changed all that.
So it was a real game changer.
And the idea that somebody like Julian would get away with actually telling the truth about US and NATO war crimes was unthinkable to them.
So they have been trying to silence him and silence others because the silencing effect that Julian, the imprisonment that Julian is causing is really dramatic and it's obvious all across Europe.
There's very little independent mainstream media.
There's so few media prepared to call out the truth.
And in the European Parliament, where we are, if you say something that challenges the mainstream narrative, we're accused of disinformation.
And whereas the majority of the people realise what is happening, And they're becoming more and more informed through social media, because certainly their television sets are not telling the truth.
So through social media, people are starting to realize that the politicians represent the elites.
They don't represent the people.
And they represent the big military-industrial complex.
And it's about time that the people actually took some power back into their own hands.
People are going to have to change how things are happening.
Because politicians don't change the world, but the people can.
It's interesting that both of you are independent politicians and often in this independent media space we talk about the importance of independence because I suppose what corporatism does is presents us all with a gargantuan foe impossible to oppose because of its ubiquitous power, administrative force and Julian Assange I suppose ...is, as well as a man, and I'm very mindful of the human being Julian Assange, particularly having just spoken to his brother and his wife, is a symbol of, precisely as you've just laid out for us, Mick, what happens if, through simple transparency, honesty, clarity, and telling the truth, you expose global establishment power and war crimes.
And I suppose that's why You're here as well, Clare, is it?
Well, it is.
I mean, one of the things that I thought was real striking in the evidence, they talked about how Julian had exposed the torture, the renditions, and that actually his journalism changed things.
It changed the course of the war.
Now, how many journalists in this day and age do they change the course of a war?
And of course, he has to be punished for that.
So we've been at all of Julian's cases throughout all of the years.
And I think we are just symptomatic of loads of other people out there because what was really striking was the number like people have got traveled here from Australia, from Switzerland, from Sweden.
We met people from Jersey.
People got up early in the morning to travel here from all corners of Britain and people are not going to be cowed.
They've had enough.
They see Julian totally as a symbol of the of a free press but also I think of the peace movement of the anti-war movement and particularly now With what we're seeing in Gaza and what we've seen with the war in Ukraine, people have had enough and they see, as you say, the big corporations, the big interests.
Julian himself used to say war was about flushing money out of the tax bases of the US and Europe into the pockets of the industrial complex, that it wasn't about a winnable war, it was about endless war.
And we're so seeing that now and all of the people out on the streets were saying, no, no, we've just about had it now.
So, I mean, so today was kind of sad and determined. Because people are, as you say, there's a man
at the heart of this, there's a family. But there's a much bigger issue and people are up
for that. And Julian himself has been up for it all his life.
On the issue of the huge gap that has developed between the people and politics, in the summer
of 22, when the war was only in Ukraine, was five months on, there was research done and
showed that approximately 80% of the people of Europe favoured peace rather than continue
to punish Russia. But meanwhile, we put an amendment into the Ukraine resolution twice
that year in Strasbourg in the European Parliament, and our amendment called on the European Union
to maximise the potential to commence dialogue and diplomacy with a view to ending the war
and bringing about peace. Over 80% of the MEPs voted against that twice. So they voted
for the war to continue. Now their children weren't dying in the war. Working class kids...
Ukrainians and Russians are dying in the war and they don't give a damn about them.
They wanted the war to continue because it's a US-NATO proxy war.
It's a war to fill the pockets of the military-industrial complex.
It's a war driven by elites, not by the people.
And we had a 17% increase in living standards right across Europe.
In some countries, it's a 50% increase in energy costs.
For what?
To drive a war that's not in our interest?
To drive a war that's killing working class kids?
For no good reason.
It's extraordinary how seldom you hear those arguments articulated within the framework of the legacy media.
It's astonishing to see how underrepresented those perspectives are within ordinary political systems and it is terrifying that when those ideas and notions are raised that they're met with this extraordinarily modern Orwellian inversion, where we are told that it is somehow wrong to advocate for peace and diplomacy, but war is the only pathway available to us.
We saw how the sad, tragic death in prison of Alexei Navalny was exploited essentially to legitimize the ongoing funding of an increasingly unpopular war.
I wonder if you think that the kind of independent political movements that you two are representative of, as well as the brave sacrifices, astonishing and almost incomparable sacrifice made by Julian Assange, can be part of a deepening and broader opposition to this kind of seemingly impenetrable global war machine.
I think so, and I think people very much know what they don't want.
Maybe we haven't fully formulated an alternative, but I think people like never before are alienated from the political system, and it's sort of working itself way out in a kind of a confused way, but people absolutely know what they don't want, and we have to keep, I suppose, asking the right questions, whereas those in authority tell you they have all the answers.
They don't.
There's a huge amount of problems in society and we can only sort them out collectively.
But I do think people are absolutely trying to find new ways of organizing.
And I mean it is precisely up against that corporate capture by which the media are part of too.
They're just mouthpieces for it.
They're incredibly weak.
The view is, if anybody says anything different, they're a heretic.
We were Russian spies last week.
God only knows what we'll do this week.
Kremlin puppets, the whole lot.
And it's to silence dissent.
That's what it's about.
It's the same, as Mick says, the disinformation campaign.
No, I have a different political view to you.
That used to be called an exchange of views.
We were allowed to have two different views.
Wasn't that radical?
You know, how shocking!
But now it's not an exchange of views.
If it's an exchange of views, you're a Russian puppet or it's a heresy, you know?
War has always been brutal and it's always been ugly.
But we had wars in Afghanistan, Where there's over 400,000 killed.
We had a war in Iraq where over a million citizens were killed.
We had a war in Yemen where over 400,000 were killed.
We didn't see it on our televisions.
We didn't see it on our telephones.
Gaza is different.
People have seen over 12,000 kids killed in four months in Gaza.
And they've seen the US, the UK and the European Union support a genocide.
Because if this is not a genocide, I'd like to know what it is.
It is an unbelievable massacre of Palestinians by a settler-colonial Zionist project.
And the European media, the European politicians, have refused to call it out.
But the people are shocked.
The vast, vast majority of people all across Europe are shocked at what's happening.
They're shocked that the established countries that they thought were actually working in the interests of ordinary people, they're shocked to see that, you know what, the mask is off.
And they're seeing now for what it is.
And sadly, they still have a colonial mindset.
And sadly, From our perspective, we regard the political class and the elites in the US, EU and Europe and UK, they're still racist as far as we're concerned.
They're still racist and they don't value the lives of these people that we're seeing destroyed on a daily basis.
One of the things that is undeniable and evident from the trials of Julian Assange is the need for open, honest journalism, transparency and clarity.
And from our conversation, Claire and Nick, it's become increasingly clear that what is required is independent political movement, Independent political voices and the ability for us to openly discuss, with as large an audience as possible, opposition to establishment machinery and ongoing war.
Thank you Mick for joining us and thank you Claire as well for your dedication to this matter and for joining us today.
Thanks, Russell.
Well, that is the end of day one of our attendance of the Julian Assange hearing.
Remember, if you click the red button, you can join us and join our Locals community.
Hello to all of you that are watching us on Locals right now.
Then you get to join us when we have interviews like these, pose questions to our fantastic guests, as well as getting additional content every week.
I'd like to welcome some of our new members like SCTF and Chomu and Kimchi69, Michael420 and Mary Okina.
Also, you guys, I want you to join us tomorrow.
Do we know who's coming on the show tomorrow?
Hopefully we'll have Stella Assange back.
Perhaps we'll speak to further members of the legal team.
Chris Hedges is likely to be here, but certainly we have the opportunity through this platform to communicate openly and honestly Thank you very much.
Many switches, switch on, switch off.
▲
Export Selection