the the news of this hour as long as it is going to fail by the high quotes in london, but he has been in custody since 2019. and now with those 2 of the area of heating hills, the funds on his, on the sled plain deal for the us attorney's office saying it has not yet been put up. it should be finalized. the tentative deal made public and a court funding monday is to end his legal vassals with the us and is held with meetings, publishing, brothers and molten secret wiles, including the documents related to the us and was in a wrong again, this thoughts, as well as 8 of us diplomatic cables, he's been fighting expedition for more than

a decade, including for 7 years and so in the out. and as opposed to an embassy in london, the brought out well to him, to all, to the rest of the world, costing life from. let's go, let's take a look on the top. so it of course of the breaking news on june a song because the founder with the leads has left the u. k. off the lang c legal box. so when she agreed to plead guilty to a criminal judge itself of being released from prison, i, according to what he thinks, i saw depaul to belmont a maximum security prison in the morning of june, the 20 full office funding 1901 days behind ball, the founder of the case then boarded an ad cloth and flew out of status. the airport in the gas on is to be sentenced on wednesday at 9 am local

time. in a c panel. court judge must accept the settlement, but he will most likely earn credits for the 5 years. he has already so and will not face any more present time. this is what it's, that's close to live now to all, to close funded or we're going to go to the live. all right, we have a brown figure. let's take a look at that 1st and then we'll do across from at least 2009 and continuing through at least 2011 and an offense begun and committed outside of the jurisdiction of any particular state or district of the united states. the defendant, julie and paula sounds, who will be 1st brought to the district of the northern marianna orleans knowingly unlawfully conspired with chelsea money to commit the following offences against the united states. i to receive and obtain documents,

writings notes connected with a national defense, including such materials classified up to the secret level for the purpose of obtaining information, respecting the national defense, 7 in furtherance of the conspiracy, and to accomplish its objects assigned to a man and committed lawful and unlawful acts live it now. so as it goes on, hated moping for more. caleb, as we know, he is a bottles reaching there. and what more can you tell us about this for the ball game and any case updates, as well as you just heard, that was julia sondra agreeing to plead guilty to violations of the us espionage act. one count of conspiring to reveal classified information and publish it. uh, and as a result of that, he is back to australia and he's free at this point. uh, now there still has to be

a finalization of this in the court in the us court will make a final judgment on this matter, but it appears that joe biden's, department of justice has reached an agreement with julian assigned. he's been freed from the jail in britain where he's been held, where he was held after being walled up for years in the equity or an embassy. and he's on his way back to australia in after pleading guilty to this felony, there won't be any further charges. that is what we understand. now, there are many speaking up and saying this certainly doesn't on do what us on space, year after year after year, simply for daring to expose the crimes of the u. s. government around the world. this is what robert kennedy, the presidential candidate, the nephew of us president john f kennedy. this is what he had to say in response to today's breaking news about julian. a saw the bad news is that he had to plead guilty to conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defense info,

which means the us security states, succeeded in criminalizing journalism and extending the jurisdiction globally to norm citizens. julian had to take this. he has heart problems and he would have died in prison. but the security state has imposed a horrifying president and delta a big blow to freedom of the press. and there certainly has been years of torture. abdul in his arms from the time he was held in the act with rain embassy to the prison sentence, the surgeon the united kingdom to the time he was detained, pending possible expedition to the united states. julius sanchez certainly suffered and you in his arms. he was the founder of which he leaks. he enabled all kinds of us diplomatic tables revealing wrong doing to be made available to the public. in addition to that julian assigned also, uh, arranged for the crimes of us forces in afghanistan and iraq to be revealed. the revelations of chelsea manic among others and the murder of civilians was made

public because of wiki leaks. in addition to that, julius on revealed and made public the information about how the democratic national committee was conspiring to rob bernie sanders of the nomination and the 2016 democratic primary. and there has been a huge campaign to demonize. julian assigned many expected that perhaps the mainstream media would come to his defense as the very issue of being able to publish classified information and do your work as a journalist, exposing the government was in question, but that appears to not be the case western mainstream media turned against him and repeated all kinds of smears on his character. and it seems that after years and years of being how and being this, treat it and really suffering. we have an agreement that has been reached. where julia massage is on his way home. many are looking on and seeing this as possibly ending the a quite a tragic saga. i'm looking on this as an example of the hypocrisy of western

leaders, but many are also looking on and saying that hadn't been for all the people that protested the many international days of action, where people just refused to not talk about his case and raise awareness his day might never comp, so this is a mixed day of the motions. for many people who followed this case for year after year after year to julian designs is no longer a prisoner, it appears dealing as on his on his way home. and a court proceeding finalizing his case in u. s. federal court will be taking place shortly. yeah, and the tenants, i have to look for that update id cards, one cable that buys again. thank you. but it's because live now to monte there until the, the full money in prison. human rights advocate. and i don't hear from you as one of the things about for taking the time. let's 1st of all start off with your initial thoughts on you heard, june of signs may be set free for, for, for life, for ever now to be a little low. but what are your thoughts?

the 1st, i'm very happy for julian and his wife, stella. um, you know, i know what it's like to be separated from your family. i, you know, perhaps better than most have some idea of, of what he was doctor. and so my, my 1st reaction is just, you know, thank goodness and i truly wish him the best in his family, the best in trying to console less than he'll over this just auto imaginable trauma that in my opinion was unlawfully inflicted upon. and then 2nd, you know, as the previous correspondence said, it is, it's a, it's a mixed feeling. it's a very, very dangerous precedent. there is no doubt in my mind that julian committed no crime and that this plea was obtained through coersion. and, you know, i consider a torture that i recognized as a subjective definition. and you know, it's just the system that's designed to beat you down. in this case, i think that the, you know, it, it beat him down. and i, i, you know,

i think most people are faced with, you know, what he's facing or are going to capitulate. and it's a little bit unfortunate, but i totally understand. um, you know why he's why he's pleading guilty and i don't consider it to actually be an admission of any wrongdoing on his part. yeah. money into it. so, you know, all, if he said 5 is and, and where 23 hours a day, you're in solitary confinement. it would break any mind. so when we look at it as the case in particular, i mean, well, well the world know the trouble is that he's been through on a day to day basis as he is likely to talk about all his experiences in the next few days. the original go back to the next few days i, i can speak from experience a sort of a half years for saving the life of a little girl in the united states from some very powerful people. and i spend time in solitary confinement and something that's called the communications management

unit, which is the type of like, so my secret black sites lockdown suppression prison where they would have put you in if he had served us present time. so he's coming out from, from that not understanding how to catch these restrictions and everything on him at, at belmont. i imagine it's gonna take him a little while to, to decompress and to decide kind of where to go from here. and those are conversations. he's going to have to have with this family, so i won't attempt to speak for him. you know what i mean in that regard? that's ultimately his decision. i think that they've given, you know, his history is a whistle blower and it's history with frequent weeks. it's probably more likely than not, but eventually we'll get some details of counting of, you know, the past 5 years, and perhaps even before that from his final view. here's the embassy and one to mark your spear is on a clear do you have something in this case? uh, but uh, when he goes to court, when you turn into the support on the territory in the pacific guidance, us searching the pacific items. we clean carpet case o as in like, okay,

by if you've uh, you pleaded guilty to this s b a adds, spend, so let's say you spend 5 years in prison, that's cool. lots of times of but you know, the us government, are they likely to add any ex, uh uh, provisions such as, don't talk about it or don't tell anyone how we treat to do this sort of uh, restrictions we added to the case. i mean, through your experience to do would be and to my knowledge by unprecedented for exam to try to put a gag order on how he was treated in prison. the one thing that they might do is said if he is not allowed to discuss the, the classified information any further, they can try to put some kind of condition on that on like the content of the diplomatic tables. i am under a similar restriction right now in terms of talking about the computer networks of

the so called victim that in, in my opinion, y'all torture to nearly killed a little girl. i can't tell you now about the details of their computer networks, but i'm free to discuss this, the c, m u. right and where they helped me and the human and constitutional rights violations there. i mean, i guess you could never say never. i think this will be the most attention at this particular us district court on the murray on islands has gotten in a long time. if ever so i don't know how prepared this judge has to deal with this case. it seems like, you know, this decision to do, the plea hearing and the sentence thinking that court came about rather quickly, at least that's the way it appears to me. so i don't know if they're going to have all the time. the thing with like an order kind of to do this, my understanding is pleading guilty of one kind of conspiracy. i'd have to look at the particular conspiracy charge, but if it's uh, a $371.00 transfers like a general conspiracy account, then the maximum present time at that charge carries is 5 years and he's already

over serve that. so there really is no discretion on the part of the judge again, unless it's a different conspiracy kind of have to look at the exact code that he's charged under. but if it's a c plea, which is this kind of binding plea, your correspond was talking about where the judge really has no discretion. the judge either have to accept the whole thing or reject the whole thing. and the judge does have the discretion to reject the whole thing. but that's, that's fairly unlikely, especially in, in a case like this. i think, i think he'll be free to discuss what's happened to him. i think it just might take more than a few days for him to decide to do that and to find the right format for him to do that. i think deserves all the time that he and his family want to console us before he you know, decides to size what parts of his story he's going to tell in which order to human what yeah, no doubt he does need that time for so it's just fun with his family, no doubt indeed we will, of course, be keeping an eye on those things with my remember who your take on? why now, what i mean is it has this little what to do with why didn't trying to look like

he's a, perhaps a helping the common mind or is it trying to boost biden's ratings? why is this little happening now? i think there definitely is a political aspect to it. i'm not the best informed in terms of like the back room wheeling and dealing that goes on in d. c. i think they're, they definitely want to this resolved before the election. they didn't want it uh, hanging past the november presidential election here the united states. i think that obama's decision to not charge the case weight heavily on 5 because this is, this is what are the charge. julian was something the obama justice department thought about and ultimately determined not to do right. and then bind inherits, you know, the open case against julian, and that he's going into an election. right. and so i do think that the politics of it mattered. i think the, the international attention and advocacy and activism and protests at the news broadcasts and everything else i think that matters to, i think by them is,

as they all are, you know, worried about his, his legacy and how his legacy will be perceived. right. and i think this helps, i mean, objectively speaking, i think this will help by this legacy in 2030 years will be remembered as the, you know, the guy who, who resolve this without too much ag, on washington space. and that's what this, this does, this is a face saving deal from washington dc. yes, man, just right. find the appropriate. yeah, absolutely more so you know, um this julian assigns what, what impacts do you think uh, this will impact then goodness on himself. do thing have on journalism many of you i think his impact was great and that he taught a whole generation of journalists how to fundamentally deal with the internet and collect source documents and sources over the internet. pioneered that approach. and there were people who didn't take him seriously at 1st,

but they did take very seriously his results and the criminal case against it was actually kind of a testament to the, the seriousness of the results that he was able to achieve via those methods. and that's why this precedent, it does it, it hangs kind of a pall over a lot of journalists who, like, for instance, operate anonymous. dropbox is which, you know, most of the main stream us press dots, right? what are, even, are you not allowed to take out of an anonymous dropbox now and what kind of conspiracy theory you know, literally can they try to concoct against a journalist who publishes something that uh, you know, someone in washington finds inconvenient, embarrassing, and you know, whatever i, you know, i, i do think it, it does set of very, very dangerous precedent. and i think that the journalist who have been sharing on this prosecution of julian assigns this entire time, you know, they got it now look over their shoulders and i will be the 1st to play them the world's smallest violent if they get indicted on some kind of

a similar case. it's interesting, marty, how most of the main street made it to in the back on is, you know, signed on, you know, i think it was worse than that. they didn't, they didn't just turn their back, they were cheering on the prosecution. right. they've only, they just turned their back, you know, they just said nothing that would have been preferable to think uh, they're likely to uh, i'm either going to be reporting this morning of the report and the 3 victory for the justice department. oh no victory for the justice department, victory for the blind administration. i think there, unfortunately, i think they're gonna say that, you know, he got off easy because of a lot of, uh, you know, anti american international sentiment that's, that's likely house to be report. yeah, it's interesting money. why didn't you go with the didn't days about free speech and the 1st amendment, even the didn't saw in a non american, but uh these rules was sort of uh, extended to him,

couldn't change how free speech and the 1st amendment be. so let me type in the us i think it already has and, and again, like i, you know, when the next case is brought on, i kind of similar theory and what the justice department here does is they, they test the theory and they keep stretching it keeps stretching, it keeps stretching, it, they kind of push it as far as they can't, right? and that's what we've seen with the, the enforcement of all the other criminal laws that are on the books, the federal level in the united states. so, you know, there's again, like i'm very happy for julian, i totally get why he's pleading guilty. i think most people would have succumbed a lot earlier than he did. but it does set this very dangerous precedent, and i do not think it will be the last that we hear of this prosecutorial theory. one last question was due for the ego, the way they treated the saws and full statement as of and ready to, to uh, to take this deal. well, those practices be of

a little those 5 to see the lights of day. i'm julian is free to tell that story if you choose us to i get, i think more likely than not you well, and i for one will be listening, you know, when that time comes. but ultimately, it's just decision. and you know, is families decision, you know, where they go from here and, you know, he's done more than anybody has any right to ask of him, right? so i will not be asking any, anything further, you know from him again if he decides to to come forward and tell the story, i'll be in a front row seat. but there's certainly no demand for me that he do anything else. yeah, my mother and i see says so thank you so much for joining us today. was the gone. so human rights and just each state. so i thank you again for your time. thank you . about the former ecuadorian president, rafael colorado says that the assad should never have lost his freedom. telling the truth. for julie on the phone,

she's persecuted for telling the truth not for lying. and he is the truth. tell us persecuted, punished the one buried alive in a prison when the ones in prison should have been the war criminals. so this has been really crazy. 12 years of a generally slice have been stolen from him for telling the truth. the real war criminals went on punished. whoever denounced will crimes was persecuted today. we are happy because he is being released, but he should never have lost his freedom on the country. he should have been recognized for his coverage and his journalistic ability to tell the truth. but it costs a life to need a lot of media as lionel ways of places to see that. i know this is, is this good news for, for the well, is this good news? is it definitely the news as you now saw? and what is it? good news for the us? is it good news for freedom of speech? what are your thoughts on you hud? but as you know, saw is finally going home. a hi one question. freedom of speech. you're

a little bit late with that one. read, i'm of speech, what freedom of speech. we ask this question. let's look at it this way. imagine you and i are cold professors of a school of journalism school. as one of our students asked us, professor, what do we do now and why each of the assignments prosecution, to be the journalist, to investigate truth, but not get caught up in the particular situation he was caught up and how do we perform more commit journalism without falling into problems with the law. i don't know. what did he do? that was wrong. my question i'm, i'm a lawyer. i'm a former branch of gear. what did he do that would read? he's a journalist. when daniel ellsberg revealed to the pentagon papers,

he violated the law, they wanted to get him, but it was kind of half forwarded. the washington post was really julian and assange day warning prosecuted. it's the new york times. they weren't prosecuted. chelsea man the okay, fine. i can kind of understand that. ok, you took this, but you are a journalist. somebody comes to you when says here's information i have, we call it a whistle blower. we term legislation. we have a supreme court case here called barton nikki. same case, 2001 supreme court said it as clear as day. if you was a journalist, receive information that was stolen or in trust. so really a good, but you did, and it's news worthy. you're off the hook. the 1st amendment protects you. again, i ask, how do you act a perform journalism if by virtue of during your doing it,

you're in charge of that has to be nice to you or somebody, bob, but the question about your is diction. american citizen could you be charged with, with espionage by a french court because some french citizen came to you and you published it there. i mean, the m, the locations of this, and one more thing before i forget the main stream media professional journalism should be ashamed of itself. they didn't say all this goes to the essence of what they do. do you would have thought there would have been protested from all over people? join the arms of a civil libertarians journal. this professors who lawyers, judges jurors, everybody, people who, and especially in the world now of the blogosphere and digital platform is where we are all citizens and civilian journalists. what about us?

no, but you can hear the crickets, you're deafening. i don't understand this. what did this man do? no, of course what he printed was embarrassing. that's why you did. you don't print something up so that nobody cares about. this is, you know, elvis is alive or big for this is something that was true. again, i go back to the pentagon papers, i go back to what we've done before. this is, there is no freedom of speech, it's dead. now, the thing is also talk about you said you're very good question to think maybe this is politically motivated. everything is politically motivated, but here's the question i have. what if, instead of embarrassing the obama administration or the by the ministration? what is what had been the trump administration? if president trump was embarrass, let's say, do you think that would have been to that same desire that would have given him

a model? it depends upon who's access gord, how are you suppose to investigate the ravages of the war in vietnam? we had the me lie, massacre right, 9068 and was a horrible. it was her roof. big somebody i ventured to say violated a law in produce seeing the information which led to uncovering the one of the worst atrocities in human history. you always violate is edward snowden? does this have any pets backs on him? i know it's a little bit different. he's not a journalist, per se, is going to take weeks to one rabble this, but i ask you this question. everybody listening. let's retro fit this or, or break this down. what is the rule journalism student? how do you not become the edited version recipients of the join us the courage awards. nobody wants to win that metal. what did he do precisely that was wrong.

those are my questions, then questions and i'm so will cover those later. but before, but let's talk a little bit about it. how do you know? so it was co host to agreeing to take this deal, you know, a full my lawyer will do it. why is your client will to take a deal like with off the years of spending uh, 23 hours a day in a 2 by 3 room for the series, some lights without even being charged for, for the, you know, for anything. but i mean, is there this size, right to take this deal is, does it said amendments to some of the others as well? so very good. you asked me about 20 questions. first of all, i still am a lawyer. why is it that the next part of the question is to why answer the question yourself? yes. pagan, played anything, playing to, to do a 10,

not being the lindbergh baby. anything that out yet. i'll talk about it later. everybody understands what this is. you think anybody said as well, you know, you know, julian, yeah. i gotta say is something you really letting me down. you know, you did 5 years. what did my head before? oh, he's a here. oh, of course he's going to plead guilty. i would have put guilty do any thing, just thinking of the lusitania, it doesn't matter. get me out. and everybody knows that that you ask the question. i would, i have advised that absolutely. i would have offered it. what do you want? what to do? first about what is it my, my loyalty is just to my clients that necessarily generally journalism and free speech. but my client and i also, i've got to say something as i know physician,

i thought he looked in, in remarkably good shape. what about his mental spiritual condition? now, can you say p t s d? you know, one of these days we're going to have to ask ourselves, is there going to be any kind of liability in the parts of jailers who take people? and i guess by virtue of incarceration, that in and of itself destroys the soul. what again, what did he do? he is a hero. no matter what anybody his name will be for ever and blazing. indeed, indeed, the statuary of, of, of, of journalism he's a 0 no don't. but he's gonna hold this against him. and the fact that he went through all this and was started. it's just, it's, it's a testament to him. so i don't know what the, the back deals is. he might have been offered this before. he might have turned to death. who knows, and you to ask a question, will he be limited in any way to speaking the truth?

so how would you even enforce it? how would you enforce style? blind on what i have to cut you off, i am terribly sorry we're out of time boys of us until we do so. thanks again. see you again soon. thank you, sir. while that route, so this news i will be back in about 30 minutes. we'll see you then the because of 800000000 people don't have aspirations. it doesn't make a difference. how big the other 400, because the divide wouldn't be strong enough. if you want a standing ovation, you need to have gone some positive of room is that you've been blown between the 2 of i said, but why don't we lift a 1000000 people out of poverty every 6 to 7 years? hello and welcome am i no problem too in the ever evolving landscape of the 21st

century? the focus no more than ever is on india. tonight, i'm joined by an amazing but you know the mind is an under brunner producer, altered investor, and then focused. we will come on the screw and i thank you very much for having me here. wonderful for you to come. thank you so much. i've only had inspirational conversations with you every time you've spoken. so i'm looking forward to this one to is finish and gone strongly. who are you in the ultimate onto piano? you have been given the state to how did you manage that item? it sounds a little bit like it's got a sunset, but i think maybe a lot of the original ones. i would say, i think i started up at a time when i was born a she was not looked at. yeah. so proudly so to speak, 3 things. i mean most people said a chest that you couldn't get a job. so you're just started working for yourself. second, there was no such thing as funding in your funding giving this everyone talks about right now is just not that you couldn't even get a bank drawn. and i think the 3rd one was policy parents. so.