Scott Horton Show - Just the Interviews - 12/21/23 Kevin Gosztola on How and Why They Are Silencing Assange

Episode Date: December 25, 2023

Kevin Gosztola returns to the show to give an update on Julian Assange’s legal battle. He and Scott discuss the latest developments, reflect on what makes Assange such a hero and consider how his legal fight might end. Discussed on the show: Guilty of Journalism by Kevin Gosztola “Inside the CIA's secret war plans against WikiLeaks” (Yahoo News) Kevin Gosztola is the managing editor of Shadowproof. He also produces and co-hosts the weekly podcast, “Unauthorized Disclosure.” He is the author of Guilty of Journalism: The Political Case Against Julian Assange. Follow him on Twitter @kgosztola. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Moon Does Artisan Coffee; Roberts and Robers Brokerage Incorporated; Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom; Libertas Bella; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott. Get Scott’s interviews before anyone else! Subscribe to the Substack. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjY Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey, you guys, Scott Horton here to remind you that it's fun drive time at the Institute right now. We only do this twice a year, but it's got to be done. And I'm proud to do it, too. We've got an incredible crew of the best writers, authors, and podcasters in the Libertarian Movement. From Jim Bovard, Lori Calhoun, Tom Woods, and Ted Carpenter, to Keith Knight, Kyle Anzalone, Hunter Durenc, Connor Freeman, and all the rest of the guys. It's the best team around. We've published three books this year. Keith Knight's Voluntaryist Handbook, Lori Calhoun's questioning the COVID company line,

and Joseph Solis Mullins, the fake China threat. And here any day now, we will be publishing Thomas E. Woods' Diary of a Psychosis, Jim Bovard's Last Rights, and Keith Knight's latest, domestic imperialism. That makes 13 books so far, with more coming in the new year, including my new one, provoked how Washington started the new Cold War with Russia and the catastrophe in Ukraine, which I know is already overlong and overdue, but I'm working on it, I promise. And which brings me to the point, we don't have a big glass office building in downtown Washington. The money we raise goes straight to payroll and book production costs, and that's about it.

The Libertarian Institute is the best bang for your buck in the movement. If you believe in what we're doing, please go to Libertarian Institute.org slash donate for detail. on how you can help keep us going into the new year, and the great kickbacks we offer as well. And we thank you for your support. All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show. I'm the director of the Libertarian Institute, editorial director of anti-war.com,

author of the book, Pools Aaron, time to end the war in Afghanistan, and the brand new enough already time to end the war on terrorism and i've recorded more the 5,500 interviews since 2003 almost all on foreign policy and all available for you at scothorton dot four you can sign up the podcast feed there and the full interview archive is also available at youtube.com slash scott horton show okay you guys on the line i've got the extremely important American journalist, Kevin Gostola, and he runs the dissenter. That's the decenter.org. And he wrote this book, Guilty of Journalism, the political case

against Julian Assange. Yeah, did you know that he's not a criminal? No, he's a hero. That's what's going on there. Forward by Abby Martin. If you like some Abby Martin, welcome back to the show. How are you doing, sir? It's really good to be here. And thank you. You've been quite supportive of this book and my work. Yeah, of course, only because it's good. You got Chomsky and Ellsberg, the great Daniel Ellsberg endorsing the book on the back of the thing. That's quite honor there in his dying days to see that he did that. That's great. So, Kevin, I know that we have extremely important updates in the case of Julian Assange. But I don't know what they are, but I I hope that you, I do know what the status quo is, but I hope that you could remind the audience,

essentially where we're at and then catch us up on the new developments here. Yes, so we just got news this past week that there will be an appeal hearing on February 20th and 21st in the High Court of Justice. It's an appeals court in London. And this means that some of the limbo that we've been experiencing, it's defined this case. we talk about punishment by process, that means that there might be some closure for Julian Assange. And I know it's not positive to say that it might end in extradition, but we've been waiting to find out what will happen because these judges,

this court had just been sitting on this request for an appeal. And so finally, he's going to have a day in court with his appeals team to go there. His legal team will go in there and argue that he's a journalist, He had suppressed freedom rights. They're being trampled on. He shouldn't be extradited. It's a political offense. And some of the many issues that you and I have discussed as I've been on your show.

And then after that hearing, whatever the decision is from the judges, we believe that that will ultimately be the outcome. Like, it will have a lot to do with whether he's extradited or not to the United States. So if he loses, I don't know that going to the European Court of Human Rights. will save him from being extradited to the U.S. It's very possible that we would see the U.K. hand him over, transfer him to U.S. authorities, and then he would be brought to Alexandria, Virginia, and the Eastern District of Virginia,

and he would be arraigned. And we'd see this unprecedented trial that we've been talking about that could potentially happen, where a journalist is charged with espionage act offenses incredibly. Well, it might be surprising for some people to find out, isn't it correct, that one or two, I think just one of the courts in the chain here in Britain has agreed with Assange and his lawyers. This has not just been a story of unending losses of appeals all the way through. It was found earlier that he should not be extradited in a process. lower in the chain here. Yeah, that's absolutely correct.

So Vanessa Beretser was the district judge when the U.S. had its, well, so what happens is in the UK, you have to challenge the requesting state. And so his legal team had a hearing over a month in September 2020 where they challenged the request from the United States. And the U.S. was found to have basically a defective extradition request in the same. sense that Julian Assange would be abused if he was in their custody. So the judge did not allow the extradition. Then there was an appeal. The U.S. was on the losing end. And the way that they got back into the winning position was by basically going outside the court system, I would argue that

the State Department meddled in the process by going directly to the UK government and making these assurances that were outside the trial or outside the extradition process essentially and just basically said, hey, if he's extradited, you know, we're going to take care of it and we'll give him access to mental health care. We'll make sure that if he wants to, he could request to be confined and serve his term in Australia if he wants to go back home. And also, we promise not to put him in these Supermax facilities that you've been talking about that are horrendous and on and on. And that's not evidence, but it was actually treated as enough for the appeals court to say, okay, Julian Assange, you should be extradited to the United States. There's

nothing wrong with the U.S. request. And now, is there any kind of real legal status for those assurances or it was sort of an ad hoc thing but the court just decided they liked it yeah basically and this isn't something that you can uh to be i'll use some jargon here you can't really adjudicate it the the point in which this evidence should have been brought in these assurances should have been put forward by the government the u.s. governments or actually the crown prosecution service represents them but they should have put this forward in the extradition here hearing in September when they were rebutting the claims of Assange's legal team. So Assange's legal team is arguing that the U.S. prison system is inhumane and that people

consistently go through the kind of treatment that is cruel and unusual. And so if that happened to Julian Assange, it would likely push him to the brink of wanting to commit suicide. And that would be he wouldn't make it to try. he wouldn't survive to make it to trial and the u.s. government should have responded to that by saying well in fact we aren't going to put him in a supermax facility where he would go through some of this treatment that you are describing and instead of saying that they they didn't they didn't respond to it at all they didn't shoot it down and they didn't tell the asan's legal team that they didn't have this plan laid out for julian asange so that's why Vanessa barretzer the district judge took it

seriously and decided it would be oppressive for health reasons to extradite Assange. And then when the U.S. government lost, they basically were like, all right, we would take it back. We would do better for Julian Assange if he was in the United States. Yeah. I just think that's great. The British talking about the Americans, that, geez, you can't just send the guy to a Turkish prison. Everybody knows how that is. But they're talking about the United States of America. You know, man, you know how people get gang raped in there. People get abused to death.

Boy, they lock people in solitary confinement in the hole. It's like barbarianism over there in the middle part of North America right now. Lord knows. We can't just send him there. He's slit his wrist. So says the court in London accurately, you know? Yeah. And documented.

I mean, what we know is that it's been described as basically a kind of hellhole, this supermax, that ADX Florence in Colorado, people who have been in it have described how they basically lose themselves. It's conditions of solitary confinement that are imposed on a person. So that's a big part of it. And so now, you know, also what we'll get to is... Which, by the way, let me stop you for one second, because that's where Ramsey Yusuf is, the guy that tried to topple one tower into the other.

but killed six people and, you know, went on to kill a Japanese businessman in an airplane. He was trying to blow up there in the Pacific, who was, you know, Egyptian Islam and jihad, proto-Alcada terrorist, you know, is in there. Ted Kaczynski, the serial mail bomber, is in there. Timothy McVeigh, who was one of the Oklahoma City bombers, was locked in Florence, Supermax, until they killed him. We're talking about Julian Assange, the guy that ran WikiLeaks. that published documents that government employees liberated and posted. All he did was publish them, like a publisher might, you know, like Benjamin Franklin or somebody like that.

That's who we're talking about. They're going to lock him up with Ramsey Yusuf? They're going to lock him up with the most dangerous felons from federal prison who murdered prison guards and stuff like that. That's who's in Florence Supermax. They're going to put Julian Assange in there? And think about how that was ever even a possibility in the first place that you would put this guy in with the guys who murder prison guards, Kevin. Exactly.

And another thing to be pointed out is that this isn't far-fetched still. I mean, even with these assurances, it could still feasibly happen that he would be in these kinds of conditions. And it wouldn't have to go to Florence, ADX, Florence. He could go to, I don't know if you've heard of these, but they're communication. management units. They're in Illinois, and there's a facility in Indiana that they have these facilities where people are sent. And I think I've said before that the people who are confined in these facilities, they tend to be Muslim Americans or people who are Muslim immigrants. but the government has actually been very open about trying to keep things diverse in the way that they're abusing people.

So they'll put, they'll put white people in there who are accused of, let's say, environmental terrorism or other crimes or they're anarchists or whatever. And they'll put them in there to try and make it seem like they're not really, you know, just putting people in there to destroy them. Right. Like when they get busted for persecuting, pulling over too many black people, and then they just start pulling over more white people to bounce it out. Exactly. And so he can put them in there, but also the CIA, which we're going to get to in these other agencies, they all have a role in inputting and providing advice to the Attorney General on how Julian Assange should be treated during his pre-trial confinement. And so they can say, we don't think he should go to a minimum security or a low security facility. We don't think you should go to a facility like what John Kyriaku, who was convicted under the Espionage Act, should go to.

We think he should go to a more strict facility. And that's where we should hold him. And this is why, because we think he's a national security threat. And at any moment, he could be leaking to other people. And so that's why we should keep him in these harsh. conditions. Right. All right.

So, I don't know. Do you have any indication about public opinion in England and what effect it may or may not have on this case at all at this point? It seems like if it was a really big deal, then that would matter. I wonder if it is. Well, what we know is that in the last couple years, there was actually a morning consult poll that was done that showed that in Australia, his home country, it is a political issue now, and people do care. And there's actually efforts by the prime minister and others in the parliament

there to get him returned home. They've gone to Joe Biden and said, we think this is and you should be freed. But in the UK and in the U.S., people there, it's not good for Julian Assange. There's not a lot of knowledge. There's not a lot of people who know of Julian Assange, who know what he disclosed, who understand exactly why he's being prosecuted. And there aren't people speaking up for him to the extent that he has in his home country in Australia. So in the UK, they mostly just want to be rid of Julian Assange. And I think they would allow it just so that they didn't have to deal with him being in Belmar's prison any longer. Yeah. And, you know, I was going to ask you about the political pressure in Australia

because, you know, this is part of the British Commonwealth or the American Commonwealth as probably should be known at this point, right? And so they're a very close partner with the United States,

not a lower ranking satellite, you know, their opinions are supposed to matter a bit here. I know the CIA overthrew their government one time, but I think just the one time. so um and they didn't murder a bunch of people to do it i don't think um so um but i just wonder whether you know they have any real sway or is is there any evidence of their influence on the biden administration here about whether that might be a reasonable compromise is due like david hicks

and just send the guy home man well unfortunately they're still going to be a client state much like the United Kingdom, you know, they're still going to give the United States government and the military what they want. And Australia right now is playing a role in countering China, right? They are going to be a base of operations. They're going to play a part in the Pacific in helping the U.S. encircle China and do what they call great power competition, you know. So they cannot risk their part in this global agenda and so they don't want to go too far but however they look embarrassing if they're not standing up for one of their own as he is systematically abused through this extradition process through this espionage act prosecution and like i've said before all these organizations throughout the

world all throughout the world if they're civil liberties their human rights press freedom whatever label they affixed to themselves as being advocacy organizations. They have all, if they are reputable, condemned what is happening to Julian Assange. And that's an embarrassment for Australia that they can't actually do anything to force Joe Biden to release him and end this case. And Anthony Albanese said as much after his visit that he actually wasn't going to try and pressure the Justice Department because he bought the idea that there is something virtuous about the Biden White House, not telling the Justice Department to drop the charges. And the reason being guys is because they think, well, Donald Trump meddled in a lot of Justice Department cases. So in order to justify

continuing this case and without engaging critics, one of the horrible and I think ridiculous things that spokespeople for the Biden White House have said to reporters is, well, we just can't really drop the charges against Assange, it would be meddling in the case against Julian Assange. It would be not allowing this process to run its course. I think that's stupid. That's absolutely stupid. It's disingenuous as all hell. Like it wasn't a political decision to indict the guy in the first place. Come on. And it absolutely was. And what I pointed out, you know, and it has nothing to do with whether you support Obama or not, you support Trump or not. It has everything to do with the fact that when there was a chance for Julian Assange to be charged,

they chose not to. After they went after Manning and prosecuted Manning and Manning was convicted of the disclosures to WikiLeaks and went to a military prison, the next stage would have been to go after Julian Assange if he really was a co-conspirator, if he really was a criminal. And they understood that they couldn't do it without jeopardizing the First Amendment and freedom of the press. And so they passed on it. And then when Donald Trump came along, it was Attorney General Jeff Sessions and CIA director, Mike Pompeo, who really, in my view, are the players who end up being the big drivers in Donald Trump abandoning this celebration of WikiLeaks that he had put out there. You know, he was in love with all of the Clinton campaign emails that he was reading while he was running against Hillary Clinton in 2016. Well, when you empower Jeff Sessions as your attorney general and he doesn't like leaks and he really doesn't understand journalism and then you give Mike Pompeo the directorship or the leadership of CIA, this is what is going to happen.

They're going to go after someone like Julian Assange. And then, you know what, Kevin, could you remind us the story about, you know, about this, don't you? the deal where Assange was using the vault seven leak as leverage and was saying, let me off and I won't put out the vault seven stuff. And then Senator Warner got a hold of it and tipped off the FBI and the FBI ruined the deals. He was dealing with the CIA first, I think. And maybe the CIA was going to take it to the Justice Department as a done deal, something like that. And then And once the FBI got a hold of it, Comey got a hold of it. And I forgot exactly how ruined it.

You know what I'm talking about? Yeah, no, I vaguely remember. And the most important thing about this is that this investigation, which didn't produce a whole lot of anything, the Mueller investigation, right? The walls were going to close in on Donald Trump, and they never did. But he was going to do something to try and help the Justice Department. and he was partly also willing to assess some of the security vulnerabilities that were exposed in the vault seven leaks and try and you know advise the u.s government on how they could do better and this was rejected as any part of a way out of this uh and mark warner a democrat just basically thought it was offensive that the fbi or the u.s government would negotiate with julian asange at any turn in this legal case, and he blew it up.

Any possibility of Julian Assange being step-free, he blew that up. Hey, you guys, did you know that I don't just write books? I publish them. Well, the Institute does, and I'm the director, so yeah. 13 of them now, including my four. We published five more in 2023. Lori Calhoun and Tom Woods books about the COVID regime, Joe Solis Mullin on the fake China threat,

Jim Bovard's latest last rights, and our managing editor Keith Knight's domestic imperialism. And we've got more great titles coming in 2024. Check them out at Libertarian Institute.org slash books and help support our anti-government efforts at Libertarian Institute.org slash donate. And thank you. Hey, y'all, Scott here.

Let me tell you about Roberts & Roberts Brokerage, Inc. Who knew? Artificial bank credit expansion leads to price inflation and terribly distorted markets. If you've got any savings left at all, you need to protect them. You need to put some, at least, into precious metals. Well, Roberts and Roberts can set you up with the best deals on silver, gold, platinum, and palladium, and they've been doing this since 1977.

Hey, if you just need some sound advice about sound money, they're there for you, too. Call Tim Fry and the guys at 800-874-970. That's 800-874-976. or check them out at rrbi.co. That's rrbi.co. You'll be glad you did. Searchlight Pictures presents The Roses, only in theaters August 29th. From the director of Meet the Parents and the writer of Poor Things comes The Roses, starring

Academy Award winner Olivia Coleman, Academy Award nominee Benedict Cumberbatch, Andy Sandberg, Kate McKinnon, and Alison Janney. A hilarious new comedy filled with drama, excitement, and a little bit of hatred. proving that marriage isn't always a bed of roses see the roses only in theaters August 29th get tickets now and then that led to the vault seven leak which the CIA apparently considered a really big deal much bigger than the Manning leak before which is only secret level stuff it was embarrassing uh what we know from the yahoo news reporting is that Mike Pompeo was embarrassed the CIA had this attitude that they had a WikiLeaks and it had happened to the State Department with the U.S. diplomatic cables that Manning disclosed. The Pentagon, of course, had to deal with the war logs from Afghanistan and Iraq, but the CIA so far had been unscathed. And then now he had to go into Trump's office or the White House and tell him that he had lost control of this. The biggest leak, it's one of the biggest leaks

in the history of the CIA. And that was where the vengeful spirit came from. The first speech that Mike Pompeo gave when he was CIA director explicitly targeted WikiLeaks and called it out as a hostile non-state intelligence service. And in doing so, it signaled and it was tipping us all off that Wikileaks and Julian Assange would be destroyed by the CIA in any way that they could. And that's where we got this spying operation allegedly. That was directed at the Ecuador embassy while Julian Assange was inside of it. Right. So talk about that because there's been all these different cases, I guess,

in Spain, I guess primarily in Spain about this because you had this Sheldon Adelson connected security firm doing cutout work for the CIA spying on Assange and plus who knows what all else and there's recent developments in that court case as well or court cases surrounding that entire issue anyway could you please fill us in there yeah so it's kind of confusing and I think it's really confusing because there aren't any journalists in the United States other than me and maybe one or two others that have reported on this you know Max Blumenthal did a report for the gray zone but hasn't regularly tracked some of these developments. But really, you don't know anything unless you get the reporting from El Pais or you follow what's happening in the Southern District of New York

with these four Americans, there are two journalists and two attorneys who visited Julian Assange. And these individuals put forward an argument in court that the CIA and Mike Pompeo violated their Fourth Amendment rights when they copied the contents of their electronics, when they were spying on and eavesdropping on their conversations with Julian Assange, and also when they were photographing their passports and the physical structure of their electronics, because all of that was collected by the Ecuador Security Company, or sorry, the Spanish security company hired by Ecuador that was called UC Global. And we believe from reporting and evidence collected and whistleblowers in UC Global that the director David Morales was working on behalf of the CIA.

This was outsourced. It was outsourced so that the CIA wouldn't do it themselves and hopefully it would never be tracked back to them that they were targeting Assange and everybody else that visited him, like his family, his lawyers, etc. And remarkably, in this lawsuit in New York, just this past week, we saw that John Codle, the judge there, will allow this case to proceed against the CIA. It's extraordinary. It usually doesn't happen. When you claim that your civil liberties have been violated by the CIA, a court usually shrugs, scoffs at you, and then proceeds to find every way to dismiss your claims so that you never get your day in court. And the CIA is protected from any kind of, of, of, of, of, of,

or accountability. And they failed to get the lawsuit dismissed. There are parts of it that the judge outright rejected. And there are things that we can talk about here that I object to in the judge and the government's attitude towards our Fourth Amendment rights as Americans. But by and large, the CIA lost. And while the U.S. government continues to press forward with extraditing Julian Assange, the CIA is going to have to contend with what they did to these Americans who visited Julian Assange. I mean, it seems like the exclusionary rule would have to kick in. I mean, if the guy ever gets any kind of trial, not that he should, just let him go.

But if there was a trial, it would seem like he would be able to, or I don't know, do you know about like how this works in other cases where they go that far on spying on a guy and his lawyers and things like that and his closest confidence, confidence, while he's, under indictment. I don't think there are a lot to do that, right? The problem here is that a journalist was made a national security target by the United States. And thus far, and unfortunately in the decision by this judge, who I give credit for recognizing that the CIA was wrong to copy these Americans' electronic devices, I don't give him credit for agreeing with the government that Julian Assange was a legitimate target.

And therefore, these Americans never had any privacy or reasonable expectation of privacy when they met with Assange in the embassy. And so here we have a serious issue here because when Julian Assange goes to trial, he won't be able to argue that the CIA violated his rights because the judge in that courtroom is going to tell the defense that, well, the U.S. government thought, had committed a crime so that's why he was under surveillance in the embassy right so um all right and you know what i'm sorry i skipped this a follow up earlier i want to get back to you real quick before i let you go is about this european court of justice what authority they have you kind of i think already implied they don't have much authority to stop the brits from doing whatever they're doing here but so what is their role in this the important thing to get into our conversation is that when Julian Assange was facing the sexual assault allegations,

again, we won't go into that saga, but I have to make this point. There was an email that came out that Italian journalist Stefania Marizzi obtained, where there was a bit of a back and forth between Swedish authorities, and I think it might have been the UK government or some deal. Anyways, they were talking about how if Julian Assange, if there was a certain, stage, if Julian Assange was going to go to the European Court of Human Rights, they were going to prevent that from ever happening. So they were going to try to have him extradited from Sweden or tried to get rid of him before he ever had any chance at, and he was in the UK. And there was going to be a way to try and make sure that he never got to have his day in the European Court of Human Rights.

So it is believed, and I think that it's a fair suspicion that if the U.S. government wins, that is, Julian Assange loses his appeal, then they will extradite him so that the European Court of Human Rights can't step in. Because this European Court of Human Rights hasn't really been that good when it comes to the CIA and the U.S. government. I mean, this is a court that is, has been willing to put CIA rendition and torture under a microscope. Yeah, well, should be great to have him free one day and having published a lot more documents about war and torture and all the great stuff that he did produce. And, you know, this whole part of the thing does remind me in a way, it's probably just a side effect of the thing. But the persecution of Assange is its own sciop against us, that we're still not talking about WikiLeaks, right? We're talking about Assange, just like they had everybody talking about Greenwald and Snowden, when the documents were supposed to be the star of the show. And so what we have in the case of Assange, lest anyone forget, is the massive Iraq and Afghan war logs, leaks, the Guantanomomophiles, as well as the State Department cables.

all furnished to WikiLeaks by Chelsea Manning, admittedly and heroically. And then on top of that, I don't know, thousands of leaks from God knows who on all kinds of issues all over the planet. People might remember one of the first big splashes they made was when some of these climate guys' emails were leaked, where they were admitting they were fudging the details. And he published things pro and against Russia and Syria. He's a very fair journalist, I found. Lots of great stuff about Israel. People say, where's all the Israel stuff in there? Well, you just search Israel. There's a lot of stuff in there in the State Department cables, for example, about Israel. And anyway, and then on top of that was what I think so many people consider the absolute heroic intervention by WikiLeaks for the truth, which happened to be against the Democrats in 2016, which, as you already, also previously implied, was not a Russian plot whatsoever, but was in fact a leak of true

things about the Democrats that people needed to know and that made them all look absolutely horribly, may have saved humanity from a Hillary Clinton presidency, which very seriously could have led directly to war with Russia if she had been in charge in 2017 over protecting al-Qaeda and Syria, of all things, even before Ukraine. a crazy lady. And so, you know, this is, I think, probably why right-wingers and left-wingers maybe kind of disdain him is because he did one thing they like, but one thing they don't like. But it should be a reason for everyone to celebrate Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. And to, you know, because of their non-partisan status, they're absolutely blemishless

track record of publishing only correct and real and truthful unadulterated documents on that website no one has ever disputed that with any credibility of any kind whatsoever um and and people ought to take the time to do the research and see what you can find there must be thousands i bet there's 10 000 articles based at least in part on knowledge found in those wiki leagues documents um and that that's really the key to the whole thing. And that's why they hate him, isn't it? Because he represents this new media that this is the only way they can control it by locking it in solitary confinement.

Exactly. I would just say in closing that there was a Belmarsh Tribunal event in D.C. There's been these series of kind of tribunal hearings with people who are supporters of Assange. Abby Martin, who did the foreword for my book, spoke, gave an incredible speech, basically saying a lot of along the lines of what you just did, but connecting what's going on with Gaza and nearly a hundred journalists have been assassinated or executed by the Israeli government during that war. I mean, they're deliberately doing this with U.S. weapons that have been sent to them.

And I connect that back to Julian Assange, as did Abby Martin. and what you're saying is important because WikiLeaks can't work right now. It can't function. Christian Harafsson is the editor-in-chief, but he's basically just out there helping with Assange defense work, fighting this legal case. And this was the goal. The goal was always from within the CIA, the national security state of the U.S., to make it so that WikiLeaks could no longer operate, to make it so that Assange could no longer be

the leader of WikiLeaks. and do this work, and they've succeeded. So I think that brings me to the final thing that should be said, which a lot of people ask me, like, do you think Joe Biden would actually go forward with this? Do you think the government will actually go forward and put Assange on trial? And to me, I think that it's actually possible that he would get here to the United States, extradited, and maybe a trial never happens. And part of me who just understands the way that empire works, the way that U.S. power asserts itself, they don't want to lose an extradition case.

They know that that would be pretty embarrassing for them. And so they might just win the extradition case, bring Julian Assange to the U.S. And then on their own terms, again, reminding everyone, we're the ones in power, we're making the choices, you're not going to pressure us and get us to back down. but maybe they would come up with some kind of a deal with Assange that lets this all end because he has been in prison now for four years, over four years, four and a half years in Belmarsh. The arbitrary detention that he lived through, he entered the Ecuador Embassy back in 2012. So over a decade in some form of detention or another, this is longer than people

serve for offenses under the Espionage Act. So right now, he's already served more time in prison than John Kyriaku, Daniel Hale will serve a drone whistleblower, reality winner. Go down the list of people accused of leaks. He's already served more time. You know, it won't be long before he served as much time as Manning did, who gave him the documents. So I think it's possible that this might all go away. But Biden and the U.S. government, the CIA, all of them want to. to maintain the upper hand and not bow to us, us journalists, us supporters, the activists out

there that are trying to free him and his family who say that he should be able to come home. All right. Well, man, I can't tell you how much I appreciate all your great journalism on this issue. You were being modest before when you were saying there are others. You're right. Max Blumenthal does a piece here or there, but I don't know of anyone who does the job that you do staying on this topic for every single development day in. and day out, weekend and week out

for years now for this whole time. I mean, I've been talking to you about Assange since 2010, probably 11 maybe. So, man, I don't know what we do without you. Thank you so much for all your great work and your time on the show again, Kevin. Thank you.

All right, you guys, that's Kevin Gostola. The book is called Guilty of Journalism, the political case against Julian Assange, because of course that's the only case they got. The Scott Horton Show, anti-war radio, can be heard on K-P-FK 90.7 FM in LA. APSRadio.com, anti-war.com,

Scott Horton.org, and Libertarian Institute.org.