- if you have nothing to hide, then please hand it over, mr. marshcials have barged their way in after reports that stan marsh of the stanground foundation did in fact at one point remove his yellow bracelet. rumors have surfaced that stan did not stand his ground as previously stated, and that the wristband is in fact super-glued back together. - please let us check your wristband for super glue. - no! this is stupid! - he's the one person who doesn't do stuff like that. why don't you leave him alone? - are you afraid we might find glue on your bracelet, mr. marsh? - no! i never cut it off. - then let us see it. - this is an outrage! who out there is saying that our friend stan is a liar? - i cannot say, but he is a reliable and credible source who is of the utmost prestige. - who? - all right, it was craig. - craig! you asshole. - what's the big idea, craig? - it just looked like you cut it off, that's all. - you got nothing better to do than try and knock me down? you can't just say anything you want about people! - ooh, look at him go, standing h

. - well, there's no doubt in my mind, mr. marsh

mr. assange has fought exhibition, first hiding out at the ecuadorian embassy in london, and then in a prison cell in bell marsh spoke to bbc today. >> i don't want to say too much until it has been signed off by a judge, but the important thing here is that the deal involved time served, that if he signed it, he would be able to walk free. christian: our guest is the new york times national security and legal reporter. great to have you on the program. you said it's unambiguous and led to this long-running legal saga which has jeopardized the ability of other jrnalists to report on military intelligence or diplomatic information that might be deemed secret. can you explain that? guest: this is from the perspective of press freedoms. regardless of what you think of julian assange the person and his various actions as he evolved over the years, it was an unprecedented act for the u.s. justice department to charge him under the espionage act in 2019 for the act of gathering and publishing secret government information. that had never happened before in the united states where we have a strong first amendment cons

allow some weapons like the high marsh shooting, short range artillery up to 50 to 70 kilometers away. >> just strike targets on the other side of the border. >> what mrzelenskyy has very upset about is he wants more latitude and using atacms missiles that have anywhere from 172, 300 mile range. >> he wants to strike deeper into targets in russia. and the president has not allowed that there has been the availability of some weapons to go against those russian forces that are actually logarithm. on the other side of the ukrainian border and belarus and in russia. and that's a very good thing. there's been many of us who have said that should have happened a long time ago. but there's a concern the risk involved is that the kremlin will see anything that strikes deep into russia and it could possibly miss the target and maybe hit, i mean, i'm going to give an example, hidden apartment building with russian citizens could be an an extreme provocation that the russian leader could use to say, hey, see, i've been telling you all along this is a us war. they're using proxies to do this. they're giving them their weapons. so that's part of the calculus and