All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show.
I am the Director of the Libertarian Institute, Editorial Director of Antiwar.com, author of the book Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, and I've recorded more than 5,000 interviews going back to 2003, all of which are available at scotthorton.org.
You can also sign up for the podcast feed.
The full archive is also available at youtube.com slash scotthorton show.
All right, you guys, again, I've got Kevin Gostula from Shadowproof on the line and he is doing great work, of course, covering the extradition hearings in Britain on the case of Julian Assange, whether they're going to hand him over to Trump's Justice Department for prosecution under the Espionage Act.
And man, you guys got to read this one.
It's at Shadowproof and here it is also at substack.com, prosecutors password cracking conspiracy theory against Assange unravels at extradition trial.
Thank you so much for writing this article and for coming on the show and for all of your great coverage on Assange.
It's so important, Kevin.
I really appreciate it.
Hey, you're welcome.
Thanks for having me on the show again.
Yeah, hell yeah.
So tell us all about the prosecutors password cracking conspiracy theory and its merciless death today.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Or was it yesterday?
Sorry.
Oh, we wrapped up the third week with this witness who I have to say was an incredible get for the defense.
And it was clear to me that he is personally offended by the way that the prosecutors have cobbled together this allegation against Julian Assange of assisting Chelsea Manning in cracking a password.
Before I get rolling too much, I just want to address the fact that this is how we first understood that Julian Assange was being prosecuted.
We didn't have any charges about the Espionage Act.
We didn't have anything about putting informants names at risk allegedly.
We didn't have anything related to the war logs or the Iraq war logs necessarily.
All we had was a charge that people looked at and went, oh, they're actually going after him for hacking, as they put it.
This isn't journalism.
I think I can be okay with that.
They're going to extradite Julian Assange and bring him to the United States for doing this.
That's not journalism.
So I'll be fine with it.
So we had quite a mixed reaction in April after he got tossed from the Ecuador embassy.
This is such a big deal, what happened on Friday, because the whole entire basis for the launch of this prosecution, because this was the first charge that he was ever indicted for.
It came in December 2017 that they filed this sealed indictment against Julian Assange.
You can find it.
It goes all the way back then.
Obviously everyone's thinking he wasn't out of the embassy then, what was going on?
But they were preparing.
They were slowly building this case against him that they are bringing now.
And so Patrick Eller took the stand to address this charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.
And he's someone who was responsible for more than 80 examiners at the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command headquarters in Quantico, Virginia.
So he's got lots of experience when it comes to looking at this material.
He was given, he was able to look at the court martial record for Chelsea Manning's case.
He was able to go over the different, he was going over the testimony from witnesses that talked about what happened in the secure facility where Manning worked in Baghdad, Iraq.
And he was able to pick apart this pretty, pretty clearly.
For one, Manning never sent the two files to Assange that would have been necessary to decrypt the password.
She just never did.
And so what Patrick Eller said to the court was at the time, it would not have been possible to crack an encrypted password hash such as the one Manning obtained.
Which means there just wasn't ever a cracking of the password that took place.
And so, and astoundingly, my favorite part of all of this is where the witness here, Patrick Eller, told the prosecutor that their own expert, the U.S. military's expert, said this fact, that it never happened.
And I went and quoted the testimony in the court that was given back on June 12th, 2013.
I was there.
I was at Fort Meade covering this trial, and Major Thomas Hurley, who was on the defense team for Manning, stepped up and just asked, and I didn't even think this was going to be a crucial conversation.
I can't say that I really thought this was of any significance.
And then he asked the special agent for the Army Computer Crimes Investigating Unit about this system file and whether they had all the parts, and then Hurley followed up.
So the hash value included in the chat wouldn't be enough to actually gain any passwords or user information.
And David Shaver, this special agent, said, correct.
So there it was established in the courtroom during Chelsea Manning's trial that there never could have been a cracking of the password.
All right.
And so does that necessarily matter as far as the charge goes, that he wouldn't have been able to actually crack it, or is it conspiracy to attempt to crack it enough?
Are they going to try to go with that, or do you know if they can?
Yeah, you're wise to their game here.
So they have transformed this charge into a mere conspiracy charge.
So I don't think to actually even prove that it was cracked.
But let's just say for the sake of our coverage of Asajj and how loosely we've talked about a hack of a U.S. military computer happening or an attempt, I don't think anybody can legitimately describe this charge as a hacking offense anymore, and I don't think anybody can say that there was even any effort on the part of both Manning and Asajj to hack in one.
I'll also say that I have to be very careful about the way that I talk about this because, and as I point out in my report, and this came up in the courtroom, the account that has been associated with Asajj is based on the belief of the government that this was Julian Asajj's Jabber account.
So Jabber's an application for chatting.
The account actually isn't named Julian Asajj.
It's named Nathaniel Frank, and it's believed by the U.S. government that Julian Asajj was on the other end of this chat.
But they've never proven that Julian Asajj is on the other end of this chat at all, and they've never proven that another associate of WikiLeaks didn't have access to this username as well.
We don't know.
They decided that they were going to have one account that could be used to communicate with sources, and people at the organization would cycle on and off, which is smart for deniability reasons in the first place.
So anyone who ever wanted to talk to a source about documents that were anonymously submitted could have chats through a Nathaniel Frank account.
And Manning, I will say, believed that she was talking to somebody important.
She definitely treated this chat like it was Asajj.
But it was, and I must stress this, never proven that she did in fact have a conversation with Julian Asajj.
Wow.
That's really something else.
I guess I don't think I knew that.
I don't think I had considered that, really.
I don't think I believed otherwise, necessarily, but that had never been brought to my attention either way, I guess.
That part of it, that all they had was an assumption, a presumption.
That's good.
Right.
And, you know, it gets, this is just, it's, one of the things that Eller said in his testimony was that it's so technically deficient that it's like they, in order to charge Julian Asajj with this offense, they actually have to willfully ignore their own, like they have to actually ignore material they have in front of them about what happened in this facility with Chelsea Manning.
Because for one, we, and this testimony refreshed my memory.
One thing that Chelsea did was she took a Linux CD and she put it into her computer and she booted it up so that she could access files and bypass Windows security features.
And that was how she could essentially be anonymous and exfiltrate the files for submission to WikiLeaks.
And no indication that she got that advice from this anonymous character in the chat.
Yeah, this is all her having super computer knowledge.
And we know she's very smart about computers.
And so this is something that we know was done.
It's actually there.
We also, we also have our memory refreshed during the extradition trial about the fact that Manning had a conversation, and I don't even understand this, but I'm going to say it because it is fascinating, that she talked often about how she could begin a hash cracking business when she got out of the US military.
Which means that what she was talking with Julian Asajj about, or Nathaniel Frank, the person the US government believes is Julian Asajj, was possibly something that just had to do with her general fascination with computers and how she could market herself after she got out of the military.
Something that would be quite common to somebody young who's trying to figure out what they want to do after they get done with the military.
And so, and it was known, you know, it was known that this was who she was.
So I want to tell you the thing that I think is amusing to others that they don't know is that soldiers in her unit were actually known to constantly try and crack administrative passwords so that they could install programs that were not authorized on their computers.
And there's a computer engineer named Jason Milliman, who he also testified in her trial, and he informed the military court back in 2013 that soldiers had cracked his password in order to install a program, and then they deleted his administrator account.
So in other words, it wasn't just Chelsea Manning, they were all playing shenanigans with their computers there at that Iraqi firebase out there where they were.
Oh yeah, they got, you know, they want the, they want the latest movie that they would like to get to watch the music.
They want to have their tunes on their computer, or they want to have their own application or any kind of program that can make what they do faster.
So what would you do?
Well, you'd want to find a way to hack into, I think they would use an FTP user account, which had administrative privileges, but in order to get that, you would have to be able to log in.
And I like the fact that it's as easy as just booting off of a Linux disk, Ubuntu or whatever, however you pronounce that, right?
And then you can get all the files.
That's the U.S. Army security level there for this stuff?
Which it was all secret level stuff.
It wasn't top secret stuff.
Correct.
It, and you know, even, even so, and this is something that Eller made the point is this, this, this is something that gets forgotten, but we're talking millions of people on this secret network when Chelsea Manning did this and they didn't have any protections.
You know, we, we know that she had removable devices she was putting in there and removing and anybody could walk in and out with material and there wasn't any tracking mechanism for this, but, but perhaps it also tells us that it's not really as sensitive as they led us to believe.
They've been actually exaggerating how significant, and I know from Daniel Ellsberg's testimony that it's not as sensitive.
It can't be.
And I also, you know, I think along the lines of this conversation that we've gotten into about the type of the information, it's, it was an interesting point.
I'm not sure I raised this when I talked about Ellsberg earlier on your show, but he made the point of like, there was evidence of torture and war crimes in these secret documents that were not classified top secret.
And he thought, he talked about how he was actually stunned that our U.S. government in 40 years since he, or the, you know, the 40 to 50 years since he blew the whistle, it's now not considered something that they need to cover up.
You just put it in there and it's not going to be that big of a deal that U.S. forces have engaged in a torture or murdered some people in a war zone.
So, but, but yeah.
And just, and just to close the thought here, what happened after all of this was that they instituted the insider threat program that is widely deployed against people in our federal government today in ways that are McCarthyist and are, you know, very much directed at the lower levels of people within these agencies.
Nobody, you're never going to hear somebody who's running these agencies complain about the insider threat program because they, they could do and leak whatever they want, but people at the bottom, it's a, it's a, it's a way of controlling the future Chelsea Mannings and Edward Snowdens.
Right.
That's true.
Although, you know, if you read Assange's big manifesto from years back, that was half the point is we'll uncover specific crimes, but we'll also force the party to clamp down on internal communications within the state, which makes it much more difficult for them to do all the horrible things to us that they're trying to do all the time.
So it is true.
And you can't actually manage it.
There's no way you can sustain that kind of secrecy because people are going to become opposed to it.
Right.
And we're talking about things that are secret because they're wrong and obviously enough too.
So, uh, that's important to mention here, uh, uh, as we like to do.
Hold on just one second.
Be right back.
So you're constantly buying things from amazon.com.
Wow.
That makes sense.
They bring it right to your house.through from the link in the right hand margin at scotthorton.org and I'll get a little bit of a kickback from Amazon's end of the sale.
Won't cost you a thing.
Nice little way to help support the show again.
That's a right there in the margin at scotthorton.org.
Hey guys, Scott here for photo Iq at photo Iq.co.
Gus Cantuvaro is a longtime professional photographer with years of experience specializing in teaching homeschool students.
Photo Iq is now offering online courses for those age 13 and up public school kids are welcome to.
There are 32 lessons, a full curriculum, which include unique feedback and direction from the instructor.
Gus will take you from knowing nothing to mastering the controls.
Take a couple of free lessons on the site to try it out through offering a discount of 20% off through September and use the promo code Scott to save another 10% that's photo Iq.co.
Hey, you want to know what industry is recession proof?
Yes, you're right.
Of course, pot.
Scott Horton here to tell you about Green Mill Supercritical extractors, the SFE Pro and Superproducing Parallel Pro can be calibrated to produce all different types and qualities of cannabis crude oils for all different purposes.
These extractors are the most important part of your cannabis oil business.
For precision, versatility and efficiency, greenmillsupercritical.com.
Now I wanted to go back one to what you were saying about this hash business business.
So Chelsea Manning is chatting with whoever from WikiLeaks, Nathaniel Frank, saying, hey, I have an idea.
We could go into business helping crack passwords for people, right?
So what I'm curious about is, I think you talked about that as it sounds like that was raised in the hearing as a way of creating more reasonable doubt about whether the discussion about hashes and passwords really had anything to do whatsoever with Chelsea Manning getting better and or greater access or better help covering her tracks or anything having to do with the leak at all.
And so if that's really right, my question is, in the discussion in the chat logs, have you read the entire chat logs and is it clear that this is totally a separate discussion about, hey, I'm good at cracking hashes.
Maybe we could do a hash business and that possibly, like really quite possibly, Kevin, you think that the whole discussion about that really had nothing to do with the files at all?
Because I guess there was a story.
Sorry, one more thing that my brain does this.
One more thing was the there was a story, I guess, already that the the purpose was to create a false trail or at least to to lead to not necessarily to implicate an innocent person, but to raise further questions about who it might be in a way that could help lead away from Manning.
Something like that.
Anything.
Go ahead.
So I haven't seen anything about how they could throw off investigators.
And I've only read snippets of the chat logs that have been put into this case.
So I don't know the full chat log.
But what I can say is, isn't it odd that they never, you know, there's a lot that we've talked about with this case.
And if it is Assange or if it is WikiLeaks or even if it is Chelsea Manning, if the intention really was to crack a password, wouldn't the deed have been completed?
Why would it just be left hanging?
Why wouldn't they?
And we got a million billion files.
So apparently, you know, they didn't need it, whatever it was.
Right.
So there's so that's that's another issue you're pointing to.
But in my point being that, yes, I think this creates a lot of doubt that the conversation had anything to do with leaking documents.
And that was the way that it was portrayed.
Can you can you describe a little bit about that examination or cross or where that comes from here in the way that that came out?
Because it sounds like a pretty severe casting of doubt or a casting of pretty severe doubt, maybe.
Yes.
So what I think the answer to your question is that Eller says they're talking about these things called rainbow tables, rainbow tables being a very complex method for how you could take into and decrypt.
And then the password hashes are having this conversation in the Java chat.
She shares a string.
They're discussing this topic.
They got that.
She's he's got the string of numbers.
They're talking about it.
He says she's going to he said he could run.
He's got like an L. He says he got the account says we've got an LM hash and that refers to some process that they could use to decrypt.
And then, you know, it's just dropped.
And this conversation in the timeline comes up, as Eller points up, points out around the same time that similar conversations are happening with Manning in the at her base.
And so it's believed that she was just bringing this person at WikiLeaks into a conversation about the same thing that was on her mind while she's doing this work.
And so there's there's there's nothing in this that suggests it was to further some kind of conspiracy to provide documents to WikiLeaks.
I have to stress that she wasn't charged with this crime.
So isn't it kind of odd that like, OK, of all the things they could throw at her, they didn't charge her with trying to crack a password, which she's the one that's actually going to be on that computer cracking the password.
But they're going after the guy that allegedly had a discussion about helping to provide a way that she could crack the password.
So that should be a red flag right away that something is off.
And it's not like they were going easy on Manning back during that court martial.
They wouldn't have charged her.
They would have charged her with cracking a password.
I think if she hacked into her computer, they would have done that.
But she never hacked into her computer because she had authorized access.
And the only documents that they can that she sent after she had this discussion with the person who is this is using this account, the only documents were the state cables.
She provided some state diplomatic cables to the organization, but she had already provided all the documents we have ever talked about in our conversations.
There wasn't any more material besides cables after this chat.
So this is to me, if the prosecutor had any self-respect, what they would do is they would withdraw this charge against Julian Assange right now.
They would go to the courtroom.
They would tell the judge that we are it's clear to us that Patrick Eller took the stand.
And it's embarrassing that we're trying to pursue this computer crime charge against Julian Assange.
And we have 17 other charges against him.
So we're just going to remove this one.
And we're not going to we're not going to press it anymore.
Of course, that's not what our U.S. government does.
Would you like to know what they are actually doing with this charge?
Because I've been helping I mean, I've been looking at this very closely.
And I have noticed that it's in fact changed since it was first filed against Julian Assange.
So it's not the same charge anymore.
And technically and unfortunately, as I point out in my report, unfortunately for the defense, they may have spent a lot of time putting Patrick Eller on the stand to debunk something that in the media, he's been unfairly smeared as somebody who hacked into a U.S. government computer and that's discredited him further, even further than he already has been discredited and smeared for other reasons.
But it's been pinned on him that he didn't commit journalism.
In this case, he was hacking into a computer.
But most importantly is that now they've morphed this charge in a way that they may not have to prove that Assange ever did anything with Banning in 2010 when she was providing these documents because they entered this fresh indictment that was submitted in, that they announced in June with their press release.
They served it on the legal team for Assange weeks before this extradition trial.
They had no idea this was coming.
And they were then able to, you know, they looked at it and they found that this particular charge now has a timeline of events that includes 2009 to 2015.
It's no longer just about cracking a password allegedly, which we've now dismantled and demolished, that that didn't happen.
But it's about any time Julian Assange ever had a conversation with a hacker, anybody who the government suspects was involved with hacking, that was him engaged in.
And it's not a computer crime anymore.
They are accusing him of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government by aligning himself or having communications with anyone who he has had communication with who maybe at some point targeted a U.S. government website or a computer.
And so that's why this this this charge now has all of this material in it about Lulz Sack and how they, you know, they kind of fraud associating with somebody who had hacked them.
Well, it would have been in the process of in the process of doing this work, of journalism, when you find out that somebody has hacked materials and your organization would like to release them to the public, which is First Amendment protected conduct, that now the government is essentially saying that's conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government.
So in effect, a charge that people were mostly convinced in April of 2019 had nothing to do with journalism, which I thought was false.
And I actually write in my article why it's false.
But let's ignore that because I don't think we need to worry about it at this point.
Let's talk about the charge as it exists right now in the extradition trial, because that's that's in the past.
And now, you know, what they have to be concerned about is that the conspiracy to defraud is actually targeting people who work with sources that Julian Assange knew that somebody had hacked material, agreed to publish that on WikiLeaks, and that that is what is being targeted by the U.S. government.
Unbelievable.
Can you talk about the testimony from the guy from Cryptome?
So that's John Young.
And, you know, essentially it was pretty quick.
And we had heard all along throughout this extradition trial before his statement was put into the record that Cryptome was the first to publish the redacted cables, the cache.
It's a fairly complicated thing.
I think we've talked about it a little bit here and there.
But to refresh people's memory, David Lee publishes a password in the book.
I think it's called Inside WikiLeaks.
He co-wrote it with Luke Harding.
Luke Harding was on the byline for that article that lied and said that Paul Manafort had visited the Ecuador embassy, which never happened.
And that actually has been somewhat treated as the guardian helping to form a pretext for going after us, because this was out there and some people were believing it, that somehow he was involved in the Trump-Russia thing.
So so you've got this fact that Cryptome published before WikiLeaks, the government, the U.S. government is going after Julian Assange because they claim that he published he published this unredacted cable cache, that he published all the 250,000 plus cables without redactions.
He had been working with media partners on them.
And then there were there were a series of events that happened where people had put the two, two and two together.
They found the password.
They found the file.
They connected the password to the file.
It was opened and then he lost complete control and had to go into damage control for WikiLeaks because immediately everyone blamed them.
But in fact, it wasn't his fault because he didn't publish the password.
And it's quite common.
We heard we heard this evidence.
It's not it didn't really come from Cryptome, but it is quite common to just put encrypted files out on the Internet so that you can share them with people.
And then you have someone who has the key so that they can open it.
And, you know, that file is useless to know to everybody else.
Only the person with the key can open it.
So there's it's actually not reckless to have that out there on the Internet.
Anybody who you just had the person with the key comes in and opens it.
And so that's how WikiLeaks was doing work with this material.
It made it easy to share this among journalists around the world.
And they were working country by country to cover the cables.
And then it was disrupted by all of this in August 2011.
And ultimately, in the first days of September, this was something where everyone started blaming Julian Assange and WikiLeaks for endangering activists and informants and officials who had dissented against governments that were dictatorships or the Chinese government was going to retaliate them and or people were going to have to flee because they found out they were working with the U.S. government.
Blood on their hands.
That's what they say.
All this panic.
Blood on their hands, blood on their hands.
And then anyone in major media, you know, center left liberals or, of course, all the Fox News, they would all just say that constantly.
You know, that was their drumbeat.
You know, like be a part of history about electing Obama.
You know, this is something to really get into everybody's head.
And it worked.
And they really demonized the hell out of Assange and Manning both with that, even though, as you've covered on the show and way back then during Manning's trial, even I interviewed you then and we talked about how they had admitted the prosecutors admitted that they didn't have any evidence that anyone, not a single informant, had been harmed as the result of this leak.
Sorry if we maybe led you to believe otherwise.
But Robert Gates, the secretary of defense, said that all of that concern was significantly overwrought, meaning they couldn't come up with a single bit of anything.
Yeah, they tried to actually during her trial, Chelsea Manning's trial, I remember this.
They tried to put somebody on the stand.
I think his last name was Carr.
They tried to put him on the stand to say that someone in the Taliban had actually executed an individual.
And then they came back and said, oh, well, like that was an execution.
But we can't actually prove it was connected to a WikiLeaks document.
So that fell apart right in the middle of the courtroom.
And the judge even like the judge even turned to all of us and was like, all right, well, disregard that because that's not evidence.
Yeah.
The Taliban killed some guy in Afghanistan.
We just thought we'd bring that up.
Sorry.
Right.
And they're you know, it's amazing.
They're that ham handed with a lot of this and they'll get away with it unless it's put to them.
And so, you know, I don't I can't actually say how effective this is going to be in the way the judge interprets all of this.
But I think one of the problems is, as I said, this charge, as we understand it, has been understood as the password hacking charge.
It's it's it's it's changed.
I actually even noticed that the way that they've charged Julian Assange is the same way they charged the so-called the 13 grew the Russian nationals that were said to interfere in the U.S. election because they're charged.
They're charged with the computer crime offenses and the conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government.
So they're basically now they're falling back and just like going after Julian Assange for, you know, like they're bringing the same prosecution that they'd bring against like someone in Russian intelligence, essentially.
And so to me, just listening to this thing like in my head of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government.
Well, that sounds extremely political to me.
I don't know how you could hear that and not think this is even more evidence that it's a political prosecution, especially when it sounds like they're defining fraud so widely to mean anything that made the government mad or something.
In what way was anyone tricking the U.S. government out of a payment here?
Right.
That has nothing to do with this.
I mean, you I mean, you're pretty good with your bullshit detector.
I mean, this is such a vague kind of a statute.
It's the new mail fraud is what it is.
He accepted junk mail that we forced him to accept.
And so get him.
You know, they can do that.
They've done that to a lot of people in the past.
As you said, for a political prosecution, it's a great one size fits anybody.
Have you ever mailed anything?
Mail fraud.
You know, we got you.
Yeah, so you'll appreciate this.
I'll just I'll just read you what they they would.
This is this is from the law.
This is what defraud is.
And I'm sure you'll have a reaction.
It's basically to cheat the government out of property or money.
But it also means I love that also means so to to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful government functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.
And then it goes on to say it isn't necessary the government be subjected to property lost by the fraud.
It just only that it's legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation.
And then it's got another words, I think they mean chicanery or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.
So essentially, like anybody could be guilty of this crime if they ever did anything that was disruptive to government.
Theoretically, if I published a bombshell investigative news report that made, you know, business as usual come to a screeching halt for 24 hours, I might be defrauding the U.S. government because they lost money or they had to like deal with.
But it's like this.
That's the key right there.
That's why it's the espionage act, because you're the enemy, Kevin.
Well, this is actually a different law.
But but but but but, you know, they are saying that's why they're using that against them.
This this goes to show that exact thing is that's exactly what they're afraid of.
And the key being there that it's dishonest.
So because they don't believe a single thing that Wikileaks ever did was legitimate and real, and they want us to believe through their propaganda that it's all false.
It's you know, this is basically part of an information operation to finish the job, to to finally take out Wikileaks once and for all.
Yeah.
You know, I wonder what's the case law behind that?
Because you could say the same thing about the Post or the Times.
Certainly, for example, Trump and Barr could say about the Post and the Times.
And look at what liars they are, too.
It's not going to be hard to make the case that they have been, you know, pushing things that are not true in order to prevent the government from carrying out its duty or whatever this that is this.
I'd like to know, what is the history of this ever even being prosecuted?
And who does it apply to?
Who has it applied to in the past?
You know, I think that's a good question.
I mean, I know that it goes all the way back to the 1920s.
This this particular law.
And and I'm I'm really skeptical of these antique laws that get trotted out against people that, you know, you look back to that period and you you see the same with the Espionage Act that all this speech was treated as criminal.
I mean, simply the fact that you didn't support the U.S. government being in World War One, that got you that got you that could get you thrown in jail.
And this is the same kind of thing.
You know, the you know, now the way that they're using this law is it's no different to me.
It's just a way of going after somebody who has challenged the United States.
Yeah.
Just another one of Woodrow Wilson's curses that he left this country with, you know, on top of the Great War and, you know, a wartime law that we still got a hundred years later and still at war this whole time in great part thanks to him.
So, yeah, it fits.
All right.
And now, you know, I wanted to ask you all about what Craig Murray wrote about the razor blade and all of the medical isolation and all of this stuff.
But I've already kept you for 40.
So I'll let you go if you got to go, bud.
Yeah.
You know, you're welcome to have me back later.
There's going to be some testimony this week.
I think you might want to pass on that one and have me back after they do the UC Global stuff.
OK.
Yeah, boy, that sounds like a barrel of monkeys right there.
I'm certainly looking forward to that.
It's going to be good.
And we're not going to let the prosecution filibuster the defense out of this one, because that's what they're doing.
They could take in like two hours with these witnesses.
And it's eating into the time, which she said, no matter what, you only get four weeks to do this trial.
Yeah, I could see them, you know, trying that as a tactic.
But it sure sounds like the defense is doing a great job so far.
So for what it's worth anyway, you know.
All right.
Well, listen, thanks again so much.
And by the way, anybody wants to read that Craig Murray thing about the medical isolation, which is this whole other solitary confinement type of a persecution of our hero here.
That's at antiwar dot com slash blog.
Do you want to catch up on that?
This stuff is at Shadowproof.
It's also a substack.
It's called Prosecutors Password Cracking Conspiracy Theory.
And listen, guys, this is really one to read.
You want to read this one.
This is the core of the case.
Well, a major facet of the case against Assange here, completely destroyed by this testimony and Kevin's journalism here.
This is a really important one.
Prosecutors Password Cracking Conspiracy Theory against Assange unravels at extradition trial.
And thank you so much.
And look forward to talking to you again at the end of the week here, Kevin.
All right.
Thank you.
The Scott Horton Show, antiwar radio can be heard on KPFK 90.7 FM in L.A.
APS radio dot com, antiwar dot com, Scott Horton dot org and Libertarian Institute dot org.
