the supreme court of australia has sentenced a former army lawyer. most six years in prison for leaking classified information to the media. she exposes the war crimes of the country's mission in afghanistan. david mcbright received a sentence despite the whistleblower protection law. moreover, in order to imprison him, the state spent more than $2 million from the budget on the courts. the files mcbride leaked to reporters provide evidence of australian involvement. soldiers to the illegal killings of dozens of unarmed afghan men and children. in addition, the former lawyer said that he saw from documents how the western coalition mission was failing in afghanistan, but australian politicians and the military continued it for the sake of careers and money. in in the netherlands, special forces brutally dispersed participants in a pro-palestinian demonstration. students of the university of amsterdam seized one of the buildings. despite the statement that their protest was peaceful, the demonstration continued in one of the capital's parks, the univer

of the way the british libel laws are structured. that's similar in australia. you come here and work as a journalist because you've got the first amendment protecting you. that's down to the supreme court what would happen to the free press under another term of donald trump? and i only half joke about someone going to the gu lag. that's why those are ready to go. and i love this country. i got a green card here a couple of years ago. what they were looking for, the trigger point, the leverage on me to keep me solid was my immigration status. god knows what they would try on with someone else. >> well, i think this is part of the political layer. and we know that that's what trump's obsessed with, right? that's what all the surrogates are about. we don't carry them here because they're not legal in nature. he's not out there talking about the case. he's out there waving around articles that he believes benefit him politically. and i wonder -- i know that the judge will instruct the jurors to make a decision based on the evidence. but because that underlying crime is this election interference, election subversion crime, how much of that narrative is important in a closing statement? >>