October 16, 2025 • 55 mins
A few years back, Julian Assange was a household name in the West. The founder and face of Wikileaks, one of the world's most well-known destinations for leaks of classified information, Assange was hailed as a hero by some and a villain by others. And, whether you think he's a soldier in the war for transparency or some sort of super-villain, there's no denying that many people in power wanted him neutralized by any means possible. In our last episode, we left Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he'd been living, and fighting extradition charges, for several years. Then he seemed to disappear from the headlines. So what happened?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back to the show, fellow conspiracy realist. This is
a classic episode while we were on the high seas.
We have a lot of folks that we call returning
guests on Stuff they Don't Want You to Know, because
they come in and out of all kinds of stories,
and for several years over the course of this show,
one guy who absolutely captivated our attention was the creator
(00:23):
of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
He was amongst one of the first dozen episodes that
we ever made of this iteration of stuff they Don't
want you to Know, and he made several appearances on
our video series on YouTube. So do check out YouTube
dot com, slash Conspiracy Stuff or at Conspiracy Stuff if
you will.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Well, it's so funny that this just came up because
I just got served a recommendation on one streaming app
or another for the Alex Gibney documentary We Steal Secrets,
the Story of WikiLeaks, which I had never got around
to watching, and it's on my list, and it reminded
me of this. And now, isn't there some kind of
like he's in the wind a little bit right now?
What's going on with old boy?
Speaker 1 (01:04):
Well, we know that he made it back to Australia
after we did this episode in twenty twenty, and from
statements by his brother Gabriel Shipton at the time, the
word on the street was he was still adjusting spending
time with his family because he went through some horrific
stuff right when it was locked up in the embassy.
(01:26):
We know that he attended some pro Palestinian protest in
the past year. He also went to some other notable events,
but he's been kind of keeping his head down. Yeah, Hey, do.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
You think Julian Massage would ever talk to us? Would
we want to talk to him?
Speaker 4 (01:43):
I think I would want to talk to him, absolutely.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
Yeah, I get text him. Okay, Ben, Well, well it's
someone who says they're Julian Massage. I think I just
put up like that my phone. But well, yeah, let's
reach out because I think it would be a fascinating
perspective and it's worth exploring, especially because we know the
reporting about this guy was so heavily tilted and influenced
(02:08):
by powerful forces when WikiLeaks was having its heyday in
the news.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
It's practically referred to as like a terrorist, like a
cyber terrorist.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Right, and for some he is a soldier in the
war for transparency. To others, he is portrayed as a
super villain. In this episode from twenty twenty, we ask
whatever happened to Julian Massage.
Speaker 4 (02:31):
But first let's hear a quick word from our sponsor.
Speaker 5 (02:34):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies, history is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of Iheartrading.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Noah.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
They call me Ben. We are joined as always with
our super producer, Paul Mission Controlled Decant. Most importantly, you
are you. You are here, and that makes this stuff
they don't want you to know. Today, we're focusing on
the story of one man, a single individual, a larger
than life figure who once upon a time dominated global news.
(03:25):
To some, he is an inspiring icon of free speech
and transparency, the kind of figure you'd build a statue for.
To others, he's a power mad super villain, an agent
of chaos, and to still others many people, he's just dangerous.
His name is Julian Assange.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
Our last update that we did on this show on
Julian Assange was almost exactly a year ago today. It
was May tenth, twenty nineteen, and today's May sixth, twenty twenty.
As we're recording this, so you know, we're not gonna
spend too much time in the background because previously we
have covered basically Julian Assauge's earlier situations. If you really
(04:08):
want to learn that stuff, you can go back to
those episodes. But for for today, we're gonna look at
where he is now, briefly, how he got there, and
the very very real, big picture issues that his current
situation is revealing.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
Do you guys think what makes people think super villain
is his like stark white hair. You know, it seems
like a really good feature for a for a like
a Superman villain of some kind.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Well, Ben Ben has his background right now in the
video chat we're doing. He's got a picture of Julian
back there, and to me, it doesn't feel very super villainous.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
I mean, that's the that's the issue. You know, we're
recording shows while we're several weeks into quarantine. But this guy,
this picture that I have in the background, he's he's
a quarantine master, you know, he's been on lockdown for
nearly seven year, so when they're pulling him out, he's
got the he's grown a beard that is as white
(05:05):
as his naturally white hair. And I think I could
agree with you, Noel, for especially for people who aren't
reading the specifics of what he does. If you just
see a headline in the picture of the guy and
you like Bond films, you might be tempted to say, yeah,
that guy looks like a super villain. A lot of
it will go into dress too, Like if he wore
(05:25):
a turtleneck more often, I think that would up the
Bond quotient. But maybe I'm thinking of the earlier Bond movies.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Maybe he had like a bionic hand or something, and
like a cat that he would stroke with that bionic hand.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Or a weird gun.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Is that is that, Inspector Gadget, No, what is that from?
Speaker 4 (05:44):
Yeah, doctor Claw, he stroked the weird cat with the
bionic arm. Yeah, okay, okay.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Then there's also Blowfeld in the James Bond movies, who
also had a cat.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Or at least at the at the very least Doctor
Claw had a metal gauntlet, but since they called it
a claw, like to think it was like a bionic
hand situation. So those are those are some speculations, right,
but let's get to the facts. So here are the facts.
The gist of Julian Nossange. You know, Julian Nossange was
(06:14):
born in Australia in nineteen seventy one July third. Specifically,
for a full look at his biography and his early
years his ascendants, if you will please check out our
previous episodes. What we'd like to give you by way
of background now is just a very high level look
at what you could call his career and the consequences
(06:37):
of his career path.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
So today, Asan is probably best known for his activism,
which inspired him to create the website Wiki Leagues in
two thousand and six. I think we're all pretty familiar
with wiki leaks, but let's think of it as kind
of a one stop shop for would.
Speaker 4 (06:54):
Be whistleblowers and leakers.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
Of classified documents and footage from around the world. In theory,
sort of a repository for all the stuff they don't
want you to know, regardless of who they might specifically be.
And Wiki Leak's gained international attention in April of twenty
ten when the organization released footage showing members of the
(07:18):
US military fatally shooting eighteen civilians, including journalists, from a
helicopter in Iraq.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
Yeah, that was sort of the leak heard around the world,
you know what I mean, I've.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Been I still remember being in the fish Bowl office
at our previous office when that footage was released, and
you and I discussing it almost immediately after it came out.
It was a very intense thing to witness, especially being
that it was not something that was ever meant to
get to us as you know, the American public or
(07:52):
the world public.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Right. Yeah, And on a personal note, I missed the
fish Bowl. Everyone listening if you checked out our YouTube
videos and maybe we talked about it occasionally, but that
was just so cool. Other than being nearly impossible to
film in, it was pretty cool. Long story short on
that one. It used to be a single person's office
(08:16):
and then we moved in and there were like seven
of us at one point six, six or seven anyway.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
At least six. Paul would know best.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Paul would know best. Oh yeah, that's right. Paul was
a fishbowler as well, and this footage rocked, not just
the fish Bowl, but the world, and at this point
won a pause and give you a heads up that
we are going to be talking about some things of
a sexual nature, so this may not be suitable for
all listeners. Later that same year, twenty ten, when he
(08:49):
released the footage, Assange was detained in the United Kingdom
because Sweden had issued an international arrest warrant over allegations
that he had sexually assaulted two women during his time
in the Scandinavian country.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Yeah Specifically, the allegations concerned the idea that he had
raped one woman and then molested and coerced another, all
during August tenth when he was in Stockholm to give
a lecture, and authorities were very motivated to question him
about these allegations. Assans maintained and continues to maintain to
(09:25):
this day, that both encounters were consensual, and this triggered
an extensive court battle. Eventually, he ended up seeking asylum
in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in order to avoid
possible extradition to either Sweden or ultimately the US, where
his actions with Wiki Leaks led him to believe he
(09:47):
would not receive a fair shake. Much like Chelsea Manning,
who partnered with Wiki leaks to leak that earlier footage
that we spoke about, and as we know, Chelsea Manning
was significantly demonized and the brunt of some very very
serious consequences.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Yeah. Yeah. Part of Chelsea Manning's case, though, goes into
the fact that Chelsea was a member of the US Army,
so there's some heavier consequences. But still you're right the
writings on the wall. Julian Essange very rightly thought that
he would not get a fair trial, and so it
(10:30):
was that he spent He tried to get to Ecuador proper,
but he ended up spending seven years almost hold up
in the embassy. And there were a lot of media
reports about him. You can see some interviews. They depicted
him in ways that sometimes sounded like propaganda or character
witness stuff. Now, now, to be fair, we have not
(10:53):
ourselves spoken with mister Assange, but he does have a
reputation of being a bit shall we say, contankerous, like
he'll walk out of an interview if he feels it's unfair.
His bedside manner, some journalists find it lacking, but you'll
see reports of him like being a bad HouseGuest, basically
(11:14):
like he wasn't cleaning up after his cat, and that
became How surreal is that that became an issue in
the embassy. He also had two children during this time.
He was finally arrested by British police on April eleventh,
twenty nineteen, right after the Ecuadorian President, Lennon Moreno announced
(11:34):
via Twitter again that the country had withdrawn his asylum
status along the way Sweden withdrew their earlier allegations. But
after he was dragged out of the embassy in that
picture that you guys can see behind me, which is
contrasted with what I think that's Game of Thrones? Which
(11:56):
character is that from Game of Thrones? I y lewin. Yeah,
that's a good call, I think so, Yeah, I think
you're right. So ultimately, the UK court sentenced him to
fifty weeks in jail on May first, twenty nineteen, not
for leaking documents, just for jumping bail, for breaching bail agreements.
And then that's when Swedish prosecutors reopened their investigation into
(12:21):
the allegations of sexual misconduct and assault.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Yeah, and you know Wiki leagues over the years that
it has been operating, both while Julian Assange was really
at the Helm and you know, doing day to day
operations as well as when he was in the embassy,
and there were others running wiki leaks, which it did
continue actively publishing releases for a while. There were a
(12:49):
ton of controversies that arose, you know, obviously from the
ones we've already outlined there, but countless others. And one
of the main ones that we talked about that you know,
the Iraq War tape, that specific video that was released.
It was a part of a larger Iraq war release
that was called the Iraq War Logs. It was also
(13:11):
called i think the Baghdad War Diaries, something to that effect.
So that tape was released in April of twenty ten.
Then the full Iraq War Logs were released in October
of twenty ten, and this was a trove of almost
four hundred thousand classified reports that, according to WikiLeaks and
(13:34):
other people who have gone through these documents, quote, document
the war and occupation in Iraq from the first of
January two thousand and four to the thirty first of
December two thousand and nine. And this is the thing
we were talking about, that the massive event. It was
everyone talking about this multiple countries and institutions weighed in
(13:56):
about what needed to happen because of this release, and
really everyone, especially the United States, went into damage control
because not only did this affect how the US government
and militaries were going to be looked at, it also
was going to affect how the allies of the United
States government were going to be scrutinized in the future.
(14:19):
It really was a big deal.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
Yeah, it's set massive precedent, you know, and there were
so many contradicting narratives when it plays so much attempt
to spin. It was very it's very difficult to watch
history being made because history books make it seem so clean,
(14:42):
so point A to point B, but there's so many
things that get lost in the shuffle. And that's just
one of the controversies. Right. We also know that later
wiki leaks in twenty ten leaked more than two hundred
and fifty thousand classified diplomatic cables. A cable here in
(15:04):
this sense is not like an HDMI cable or something.
It's and it's not like comcasts. It's a message, right,
It's a secret message that different embassies send to one another.
And these these privileged communications might be intelligence on the
ground from an intelligence agency. They might be something as
(15:27):
small as like the ambassador to Syria said that he
was willing to work with us on this, but I
just think I just think he was trying to get
me out of the room, because the man has notorious ibs.
Like it's very frank, behind the scenes kind of looks
at stuff. There are things the governments of the world
(15:49):
do not want the international public, other countries, or their
domestic constituents to know. So it is not, by any
means hyperbole to say that this fundamental rocked the world
of diplomacy, and the repercussions are still reverberating today. This
did some irreparable damage to international relations.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Yeah, I mean think about like if you were on
an email thread with like somebody, and then you thought
you had deleted that person temporarily from the thread and
sort of talking a bunch of trash about them with
your you know, cohorts, and then you realize that that
person actually was on the whole time. Not a good look.
This is sort of like a much larger scale version
(16:31):
of that, because as you said, Ben, I mean, these
could just be very candid, little snippy comments, you know,
and it's not like it would necessarily be stuff that
would blow open the doors of like, you know, any
kind of conflict necessarily directly or any kind of intelligence
that would you know, be just earth shattering.
Speaker 4 (16:50):
It's just a bad look.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
I mean, diplomacy in and of itself is about good
bedside manner and keeping those relationships healthy and stroking egos.
And this would do a whole lot of damage to
break down some of those relationships that a lot of
these diplomats had worked very hard to nurse and maintain.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
And by the way, if you want to see either
of these two subjects that we just talked about, the
Iraq warlogs or the diplomatic cables, you can find all
of that. It's all searchable on the WikiLeaks dot org website.
Just if you're curious or you know, you're feeling a
little dangerous, you can go check those out.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
Yeah, yeah, we should say one benefit of talking about
these past weeks is that they are all available, you
know what I mean. It reminds me of the streisand effect.
You guys know what that is, right, No, So the
streisand effect is essentially saying that once something is out there,
(17:48):
once something is published online, especially it cannot be removed
no matter how much someone wants it to be removed.
It's named after a picture of Barber streisand I believe
that she asked to be removed from the internet. And
you know, we all are familiar with the denizens of
the internet. That is the same thing as telling them
please pretty please spread this everywhere.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
Yeah, it was her Malibu home as of two thousand
and three. I believe that she was attempting to remove.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
That's right, And you could see the argument there because
it's like, hey, this is, you know, my personal dwelling place.
But this situation reminds me of something very funny. I
don't know if I mentioned it to you guys when
the wikileak stuff really started hitting, but there were internal
emails throughout the intelligence industry, which is the right word,
(18:40):
and throughout the defense industry where people were literally telling
government employees, hey, we know this is out there, it's
on the news, it's online, just so you know, you
will get in trouble if you read it unless you
have the correct classification. And that was such an attempt
to like close the barn door after the horses have
(19:01):
stampeded away. We just didn't have the legislation for this,
and that's part of why it rocked the world so fundamentally.
And that's not even we're not even talking about twenty sixteen, right,
but the emails, because later WikiLeaks released some twenty thousand
pages of emails from the Hillary Clinton campaign, as we'll
(19:22):
call former Secretary of State Clinton was running for US
president in twenty sixteen, and also emails from the Democratic
National Committee. It is again not hyperbole to say that
these altered the course of US politics in a big,
big way.
Speaker 4 (19:38):
Yeah, it's true.
Speaker 3 (19:38):
I mean the emails which later became part of the
internet catchphrase.
Speaker 5 (19:43):
You know.
Speaker 3 (19:43):
But her emails explored and expanded on multiple Clinton controversies
that had already been out there in the public imagination,
and we discussed some of those early on in the
campaign between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, where we did Trump,
you know, the most popular Trump and Clinton conspiracy theories,
and the Clinton conspiracy theories are massive because they involve
(20:05):
both her and her husband, and the questionable relationship between
the Clinton Foundation and its donors.
Speaker 4 (20:12):
Clinton's kind of you know.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
Close knit relationships, shall we say, with some very powerful
Wall Street interests that became problematic especially considering that she
kind of, you know, was trying to cast herself as
sort of the people's candidate and her incredibly close ties
with very wealthy and powerful campaign contributors. This is just
(20:37):
you know, beginning to scratch the service. But it's fair
to say that the League's played a huge role in
the outcome of that year's presidential election. And it also,
you know, I mean, I think a lot of people
looked at as Songs early on as sort of this
great equalizer, you know, and trying to take powerful people
to task. And that's all well and good if the
(21:00):
outcome is on your side, right, And so I think
he really became a hugely divisive figure on the left
when this happened, and it started to feel like he
was perhaps more interested in getting the other side elected,
and that became very confusing. Part of his character really
kind of complicated the relationship with the public and Julian Assange.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
I would say two things here. I recently listened to
Glenn Greenwald, now of the Intercept, that's how he's best
known currently, but a journalist who is discussing how Julian
Assange really does represent a largely hated figure on both
the political left and right within the United States because
(21:48):
of you know, the people who would consider him anti
war or anti you know, military, because of the Iraq
war logs and other things and the diplomatic cables. They
they very much dislike him from that angle. And then
from this, like you said, and the people on political
left very much dislike him because they essentially blame him
for Hillary Clinton losing the election. One commonality that we've
(22:12):
seen through these leaks is that it is attempting, at
least it feels that it's an attempt to show that
behind the curtain scene of the powerful people in every
single one of these that we just that we've already
kind of mentioned here. And I guess when you are
doing that and showing a peek behind the curtain of
all powerful people, you're gonna kind of piss everybody off.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
Yeah, yeah, agreed, very much so. And you know, I
want to ask you guys here just an opinion. You know,
do are you all of the opinion that this that
this did significantly atpack the election or was it? I mean,
how much do you think it swung the needle?
Speaker 2 (22:58):
I would say it swung the needle. I mean, my
opinion is that. Yes, for sure, it did because it
changed the conversation that was happening on the news cycle
almost like right up into the election, right up into
the day of the election. It really did change what
people were talking about.
Speaker 4 (23:19):
Oh no, I mean, I think that's there's no question
about it.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
It absolutely hijacked the conversation in a way that Clinton
was just not able to put back in that Pandora's box,
you know, And it really completely took away her power
to kind of steer the narrative, which, you know, say
what you will about whichever side of politics that you
(23:44):
fall on. She definitely was trying very hard to cast
herself in this light of being kind of the people's candidate,
of being this sort of you know, even handed person
that wasn't connected to any kind of wrongdoing and that
she really cared about the everyman for lack of a
better term, and this really kind of shattered a lot
(24:06):
of that, and it made it at least whether it
was true or not, at least the contents of the
emails and the nature of the whole private server situation,
and whether or not she completely flaunt flouted the rules
and just went her own way. It really robbed her
of the ability and her campaign of the ability to
steer that narrative, and it was just impossible to spin
(24:26):
it at that point.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Yeah, it's the old saying holds true. If you are
defending yourself in any kind of political sphere, then you
are automatically losing. The fascists were right about it. The
Republicans and the Democrats were right about it. It's just
sort of the part of the part of the house
(24:49):
rules of these terrible, terrible games. But there you have it.
Here's the takeaway. A single man, flesh and blood, just
as many of the people listening to the show today
are unelected, himself, was able to shake the world. You
can understand why so many powerful people consider him dangerous.
(25:14):
When we last left Julian Assange, he had been removed
from the Ecuadorian embassy. All indications appeared that he would
continue on a legal battle at a glacial pace, likely
from prison as he sought to avoid extradition and probably
in his impossible death in the United States. So where
(25:37):
are we at now? We'll answer the question after a
word from our sponsors. Here's where it gets crazy. What's
happening now? Well, it turns out the conspiracy to expose
conspiracies has not worked out especially well for Julian as Songe.
Speaker 3 (26:01):
Yes, you'll recall how he said. As Songe was sent
us to fifty weeks in jail. Well, he was due
to be released in September of twenty nineteen, the twenty
second specifically, when is jail term for breaching that bail
ended and they just didn't let him out. The Westminster
Magistrates Court noted that there were substantial grounds for believing
(26:24):
if free as Songe would make another run attempting to
gain safe status, or like Edward Snowden, make it to
a country that would not extradite him to the United States.
I mean it's sort of you know, it's just the
same way a court assesses anyone's risk of flight. You know,
they won't grant you bail, or they'll make your bail
excessively high if they think or if they even think
(26:47):
that you're going to flee, let alone, if you've got
an established pattern of doing that, which as Songe absolutely
had so. Julian Assange remains in the Belmarsh Prison in
the United Kingdom. His partner, lawyer Stella Morris, who he
has two children with, recently said quote, the life of
my partner Julian Assan is severely at risk. He is
(27:09):
on remand at HMP Belmarsh, and COVID nineteen is spreading
within its walls. So this is absolutely a topical update.
Speaker 4 (27:18):
Here.
Speaker 3 (27:19):
Morris sees more than just a song's personal health in
jeopardy here saying that quote, Julian needs to be released now,
for him, for our family, and for the society we
all want our children to grow up in. Yeah, Okay, yeah,
I mean, you know, it depends on what your take
(27:40):
is on that particular vision of society that a songe espouses,
you know. And again, I mean a big part of
his character is the idea of like free speech and
about you know, taking powerful people to task. But he
is absolutely, has been and remains a super divisive figure.
So let's talk about a bigger picture issue here that
we've a little bit in some of our COVID nineteen updates,
(28:03):
the risk of coronavirus and prisons.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
Well, yeah, it's certainly a hairy situation for anyone who
is being kept anywhere within fairly close quarters to other
human beings, especially if there are any kind of sanitary
issues within let's say a prison like that, And in
prisons across the world, people are being infected with coronavirus
(28:28):
because it only takes one person to enter that closed
system at some point to then infect one other and
then exponentially grow that outbreak. But in this particular prison
HMP Belmarsh where Julian Assange is at least two people
within the prison have contracted COVID nineteen or have they've
contracted the coronavirus and are dealing with symptoms of COVID nineteen.
(28:51):
And prisons just in general are pretty rough places to
be with individuals who have attributes and possibly charges pending
against them for varying things of varying severities, and in
you know, these uncertain times, there are higher than average
odds of things like violence occurring within prisons where there's
(29:13):
that kind of fear of something like coronavirus or uprisings
or you know, maybe even riots, very violent riots occurring
within these prisons.
Speaker 1 (29:22):
Yeah, yeah, that's absolutely correct. In fact, there are numerous
reports already of riots about prison conditions in the US
and abroad, and in some countries prisoners have even successfully
taken guards hostage, not even necessarily to say, hey, we're
throwing down the prison walls, let my people go. But
(29:44):
more to say, we need to bring attention to the
pandemic bloodbath that may occur when we are locked in
here like animals for whatever reason. So this, this prison
angle has a lot of fairly plausible conspiratorial aspects to it,
because you know, we've seen the kind of manufactured concerns
(30:08):
that pop up in other celebrity prison stories. Someone has
a high paid lawyer, like someone working for Weinstein or something,
who says, you know, he's very fragile. Therefore, even though
he's been convicted of these crimes, he should get some
sort of special treatment because it's the human thing to do.
By the way, for R and B fans, R Kelly
(30:30):
is looking for the same thing, the argument being that
he has diabetes and COVID is going to blow through
prison systems. But in Assanja's case, there's solid evidence that
his life may be at risk more so than a Weinstein,
more so than an R.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
Kelly, because not as much as a an ep free Epstein,
not as much as an Epstein.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
Right, we should call that we should make the Epstein scale.
If the you know, fellow conspiracy realist. If you have
the time and the inclination, please feel free to make
an infographic of the Epstein scale the likelihood have died
in prison.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
You know, I would I just really quickly bet. This
is a very interesting thing to think about, because the
reason Julian Assange is in jail, you know, is officially
because of jumping bail, but really, when you put all
of the math together, it's because he had damning evidence
against very powerful people, right or he was able to
(31:34):
release information about powerful people in the actions they take.
Speaker 4 (31:38):
That.
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Then you think about somebody like Jeffrey Epstein that very
likely at least allegedly had the worst kind of evidence
against extremely powerful people, and we saw what happened to him.
You know, who knows if it was. Look, we can't
prove to you if it was self inflicted or not
(31:59):
self inflicted in his case, but he was only in
prison for a short time, That's all I would.
Speaker 1 (32:04):
Say, Right, Yeah, it's very much worth pointing out that
plenty of powerful people wants this guy dead, even if
they can't kill WikiLeaks, which is also on the wish list.
We should note that, you know, the Trump administration is
currently attempting to extradite assage to the US. However, remember
(32:31):
we're very quickly going into the no real good guy's
morally gray territory because the desire to gain possession of
assage transcends the growing stark ideological divide in domestic US politics.
Establishment Democrats want the guy under the jail or under
the daisies as much as establishment Republicans. He has very
(32:55):
few friends in Congress, you know what I mean, And
it's kind of misleading. That's why I appreciate the point
you made knowl earlier about people liking a hero or
calling someone a hero until their principles, whatever they may be,
run counter to our own principles.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
It's just the idea of like one person's freedom fighter
is another person's terrorist. It all depends on what side
of the issue you fall A lot of the times,
you know, I mean, certainly both sides can be guilty
of what would be considered negative acts or even atrocities.
But still, in terms of the way you view the
(33:33):
means justifying the ends, you could probably say, well, they
might have done some bad things, but they were ultimately
supporting what I think is a just cause.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
And oh and we should point out a in a
no way, baby, but kind of moment. Let me tell
you what really happened. The US is still kind of
in damage control over this, and has been since two
thousand and six, so for more than a decade they've
been in damage control here in the States. Uncle Sam
(34:04):
says Assange is not wanted because he caught the US
doing some bad things red handed, or because he damaged
the soft power of the reputation abroad, or because he
embarrassed the US. They say he's wanted because he illegally
endangered the lives of informants aka spies or assets, dissidents
(34:30):
aka also possibly spies or assets, but maybe you know,
maybe sincere dissidents as well as activist aka spies or assets.
But hey, maybe maybe activists in multiple countries including of
course rock Iran and Afghanistan. So what what? What gives?
Speaker 4 (34:50):
What?
Speaker 1 (34:50):
What is he actually going to be charged with or
indicted for?
Speaker 2 (34:55):
Do we know? Yeah, there is an indictment impending charges
standing against Julian Assange from the United States, And I'm
gonna boil it down to you in the way that
Jennifer Robinson explained it in a recent conversation with Glenn Greenwald.
She's a human rights attorney and she's representing Assannge, and
(35:16):
she explains it that the charges essentially state that Assonge
was communicating had communications of some sort with Chelsea Manning
at the time known as Bradley Manning, and that Assannge
discussed with Chelsea ways in which she could access highly
classified materials in a way that would protect her identity.
(35:38):
That's really what it's saying. That's the whole thing. Assannge
was in connection with Chelsea Manning, and Chelsea Manning got
the materials to him and then he released them. And also,
according to Jennifer, there's a widely held misconception that's just
kind of been floating around and it started from this
Department of Justice press release that came out out not
(36:01):
that long ago, and within this release it falsely stated,
at least according to Robinson, that as Soonge was being
charged with quote hacking, so in some way using you know,
a computer or a system to access classified government materials
and then get those for Chelsea or with Chelsea Manning,
(36:23):
because you know, we discussed Chelsea Manning is the person
who ended up getting a lot of that documentation that
became the IRAQ warlogs and the tapes. So just the
last thing here is that, according to Jennifer Robinson, within
that indictment, there is no allegation that Assonge attempted to
(36:43):
hack the US government in any way to get to
gain material. There's also no allegation within that indictment that
he unlawfully accessed any government computers or systems whatsoever. That's
just just to put it out there. In conclusion, the
charges are that he had a discussion with Chelsea Manning
(37:05):
about how to hide her identity while accessing secret documents.
Speaker 1 (37:11):
Okay, and then once that kind of stuff proceeds, if
it does indeed proceed, then we'll see those kind of
charges become increasingly specific as prosecutors explore their options. So
this naturally leads us to the next part of the update,
(37:33):
which is this what's on the horizon. We'll explore that
after a word from our sponsors. We've returned. So just
a few days ago, as we record this peak behind
(37:54):
the curtain interest of transparency. It is May sixth, Wednesday,
A lovely day outside in Atlanta. As far as I can.
Speaker 4 (38:03):
Tell, Blustery, I would say, yes, I love it.
Speaker 1 (38:06):
I was writing on the porch. I wish I could
record out there. Just a few days ago, Juliannassange received
word that he will have to wait until at least
September of twenty twenty before a British judge will hear
the US request for his extradition. This comes to us
from a possibly biased source. To be fair, Kristen Fraftsman,
(38:29):
the editor in chief of WikiLeaks. Earlier they said a
video posted on social media that it's unacceptable and confirmed
that ASSANGEO likely has to spend another four months at
least in prison, and if a hearing does come to
pass in September, that means that he will have spent
one year in prison after being dragged out of that
(38:51):
embassy on his what was that on his charge of
fifty weeks for jumping and bail.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
Yeah, that he was supposed to be let out. What'd
you say last year?
Speaker 1 (39:01):
Yes, yeah, that's correct. And additionally, the editor there at
WikiLeaks said he was not able to set a sounge,
that was not able to attend some earlier hearings via
video link because he was unwell. So that gives us,
unless that spin, that gives us a pretty solid argument
(39:24):
that at least in his case, the health concerns are real.
Reporters said he was deteriorating mentally already when he was
in the Ecuadorian embassy.
Speaker 3 (39:34):
So the fate of a Songe may actually set a
legal precedent in the United States. Regardless of where you
stand with these leaks. In particular, it can't really be
denied that they pushed the public in multiple countries to
hold politicians accountable and well attempt to do so.
Speaker 4 (39:51):
Anyway.
Speaker 3 (39:52):
Imagine a world where any disclosure, even if it's incredibly
vital to the public interest, becomes a crime.
Speaker 4 (40:00):
And that's like dystopian kind of stuff right there.
Speaker 3 (40:03):
Whistleblower protections, which have historically been better on paper than
in actual practice, have truly eroded in the time since
a Soinge was kind of at his peak. Consider that
other countries like China and Russia have already started intimidating
civilians for quote rumor mongering end quote. As we've discussed
(40:23):
in the COVID nineteen episodes, the scientists that reported the
early signs of that virus was accused of that very
thing and essentially blackballed and treated like a criminal. And
that was a big part of what we can now
call some form of cover up.
Speaker 1 (40:42):
Yeah. Yeah, And Russian doctors keep falling out of windows.
One fell out of a window after he made a
video update where he's protesting being forced to work despite
not having ppe personal protective equipment and despite having tested
positive for COVID, they still wanted him to work. And
then just a few days later he released a video
(41:05):
where he said that was all crazy. He denied any
of those claims, everything was fine, and then he fell
out of a window. I don't know if you guys
would keep a track of that, but yeah, make no mistake,
there is a war for information. That war is very old,
but now there is a war on information.
Speaker 4 (41:23):
Hmm.
Speaker 2 (41:24):
This is very true and you can see that depending
on the outcome of Julian Osandra's situation, this could have
a supreme impact on the future of potential whistleblowers like
you were saying, Noel, And it has a lot to
do with the fact that if you decide to leak
(41:45):
information somewhere and you could be hunted down essentially by
the government that you were blowing the whistle on. I mean,
it would really set a precedent for that. And the
big problem here it bans from the individual whistleblower to
the outlets, the major news outlets that cover stories about
(42:07):
leaked information. If if you're recalled, during the Iraq warlogs
Saga of twenty ten, as well as the diplomatic cables,
the DNC emails, these were major releases done in conjunction
with newspapers. It wasn't just WikiLeaks putting out information in
with the Iraq warlogs. That was the Guardian, that was
(42:29):
the New York Times. I think Despiegel released part of
that information. They all kind of segmented it out. It
was all, you know, major news outlets releasing leaked material
via WikiLeaks. And this is something we have to remember.
Major news outlets, let's say, like the Guardian or the
(42:51):
New York Times, these news outlets have on their sites
easily accessible methods for anyone to anonymously provide newsworthy information
to those outlets. Essentially, if we're thinking about it in
this framework, aiding and abetting potential whistleblowers. And we have
two examples of this. You can go to the Guardian
(43:14):
dot com slash secure drop right now to check out
the way that they want you to give them leaked
information or to leak them information securely and anonymously. You
can also go to ny times dot com slash tips
to see how The New York Times wants you to
do it. They're suggesting that you use WhatsApp and signal
(43:35):
and secure drop to make contact with them and then
to send them materials. And you know, if the whistleblower
individual falls because of Julian Osandra's situation, it would also
make sense that perhaps the you know, journalism is the
way we understand it, leaked important information would become in
(43:57):
some ways illegal.
Speaker 1 (43:59):
Yeah, and then maybe your past actions could become prosecutable offenses.
There's one thing. I did this on a different show.
I wanted to mention this to you guys because I
thought you would find it interesting, and hopefully you will too,
fellow listeners, speaking of censorship, a completely different person who
(44:19):
perhaps sees themselves as a whistleblower has run into what
they say as a conspiracy of censorship. David Ike just
had his YouTube channel deleted. Will not be going back up.
I think around nine hundred thousand subscribers. His Facebook page
(44:40):
was also deleted because the tech companies are instituting a
ban against anybody spreading misinformation about the coronavirus. So, as
you can imagine, there are a lot of people who
are saying, yes, you have to do this because he's
endangering lives, which is similar to the argument made by
the US government about assage. And then you have people
(45:02):
who are saying, you know, I might not agree with
this guy at all, but he is he is exercising
free speech. It's a little sticky there, you know, when
we start to navigate the idea of public safety, censorship,
free speech, because with great speech comes great responsibility, does
(45:23):
it not, And you know, you have to ask yourself
about the platform there. But but tech companies are a
little different, of course, because it's their sandbox. They make
the rules, they can do whatever they want. I just
think it's interesting that we're seeing more and more of
these these information conflicts rising to the foe. And this
(45:45):
is in no way an endorsement of David Ike.
Speaker 2 (45:48):
Yeah, assuredly.
Speaker 1 (45:50):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (45:52):
I just wanted to bring this up where we're talking
about kind of the control of speech on outlets like that,
on platforms such as YouTube. I just wanted to mention
to you guys. I don't know if you saw the
email come through. We got contacted by our old pals
at All Time Conspiracies. Some of you older conspiracy realists
(46:14):
may remember a time on YouTube when we made some
videos with the guys on this channel called All Time Conspiracies,
and I did a little catching up with them, and
they've written back to us. They went through the exact
same issues we did with the YouTube algorithm and their
(46:34):
content being suppressed essentially because they were talking about political issues,
conspiratorial issues, and they ended up having to shutter their
channel and they've moved on. So if anyone is interested
they want to do an episode with us, They've got
a podcast now similarly to ours. So I thought that
(46:55):
might be a fun matchup mash up in the podcast
world now instead of on video, just to talk about
what happened to our YouTube channels.
Speaker 1 (47:04):
I would be interested in that for sure. What do
you think, Nol?
Speaker 3 (47:07):
Absolutely? Yeah, no, I mean always down for a good
collab with like minded folks.
Speaker 1 (47:13):
And this leads us to one more potential development. So
we are at a we are at a branch. We
are possible forks in the road, and as Yogi Bearrap
You'll announcer famously said, when you come to a fork
in the road take it. Sorry that jokes for you, Dad,
(47:33):
But this we do see some very important, mutually exclusive
things on the horizon. One of these things is going
to happen to Julian Assange. One He may die in
prison before that extradition hearing occurs or before it is
carried through, and then for some very powerful people, a
(47:59):
big part of the problem would have solved itself. However,
we have to remember, you know, like Jay Gavera famously
said in his last words, shoot fool, you're only killing
a man. WikiLeaks wouldn't die if asanj did, it would continue.
It's not a perfect system, and there are allegations, as
(48:19):
I believe one of us mentioned earlier, that it has
a shifting agenda of its own, you know, including pretty
serious allegations that have partnered with Russia to wage some
sort of asymmetrical information warfare against the US. So one
possible occurrence is that he dies in prison. End of story.
Speaker 2 (48:36):
And we're talking there, you know, about one person dying
in the movement continuing. We're also talking earlier about maybe
it would prevent other whistleblowers from coming forward. But if
he did die in prison, the other scenario is that
maybe more whistleblowers come forward because they see it almost
as a martyrdom situation, where the way he was treated
(48:59):
and how it all went down, they want to stick
it to the man essentially and continue in that legacy
outside of what he leaks.
Speaker 1 (49:09):
Mm hmm. And now we have to ask ourselves, what
about the precedents If he goes to trial, it's going
to be even more crucial, you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (49:20):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (49:21):
Then, I mean here, let's be a little bit idyllic,
at least from his perspective. What if a songe is
able to stay in the United Kingdom the same way,
for instance, that Edward Snowden is currently staying in Russia. Uh,
it probably won't happen. What if he's able to escape
and live on the run, you know, like that Beatles
(49:43):
Is it Beatles? Or is just Paul McCartney band on
the run? That's it? Thank you? Yeah? So what if
he pulls that just for the rest of his life?
Speaker 5 (49:54):
Uh song on the run?
Speaker 1 (49:56):
There we go. Yeah, we'll figure out who Sailor's saying?
Is that in that regard? I guess it's Uncle Sam.
But here's the question, what if what if Assane goes
to a US court, gets extra died, it goes to
trial and gets found somehow not guilty, it gets off
scott free. Don't worry about that too much, because that
is almost definitely not going to happen.
Speaker 2 (50:19):
Yeah, he would end up going to jail again, right,
And I could I could see a scenario like that, Ben,
where he does end up going to jail in the
United States and then just goes away and then every
once in a while, one journalist from one outlet will
write a piece on it once a year.
Speaker 5 (50:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (50:40):
Well, you know, I think one thing we can all
agree on, Fellas, is that Wings has an enormous fan base,
you know, an army across the world, and they probably
won't let this story die because, you know, now that
I'm thinking back on it, I'm pretty sure that the
(51:01):
entire catalog of Wings is terribly prescient to the career
and the controversy that is Julian A. Sounge. I've got
I've got to look out the lyrics. This goes deep.
We need to get Paul McCartney on the phone. Who
can call Paul McCartney, Matt Noel, can you do it?
Speaker 3 (51:17):
You know, it's funny you should say that I'm actually
working on a podcast with Paul McCartney's guitarist, So may
well have an end to Macca. Nice perfect, They call
him Macca. They call him Macca like the guitarist calls
him Mecca. That's a that's a big big Paul fans
call him like McCartney Macca. Oh okay, wow wow, it's
(51:38):
like a pet name.
Speaker 1 (51:39):
Or like McDonald's slaying for in Australia like McCaw.
Speaker 4 (51:45):
I just called him poll.
Speaker 1 (51:47):
So so that's where we are now, and to you
from failing hands, we throw the torch, be yours to
hold it high. If you break faith with us who die,
we shall not sleep. Though poppies grow and flanders Field
went on a little longer than it needed to, but
you get the picture. We want to know two things
from you. First, what do you think should happen to
(52:10):
Julian Aesonge and others like him or those who come
after him? Secondly, what do you think will happen to
this notorious whistleblowing mastermind? Let us know. You can find
us on Facebook, you can find us on Instagram, you
can find us on Twitter as a show and as individuals.
Speaker 2 (52:29):
Yes you can, and just one last question I want
to pose to you, what do you think the next
big leak will be about? Because there will be another
big leak.
Speaker 1 (52:38):
I'm gonna blow this wings thing wide open.
Speaker 2 (52:40):
I'm telling you, all right, Well, we've got a nomination
from this side. Let us know what you think. Like
Ben said, you could find us usually at Conspiracy Stuff,
sometimes at Conspiracy Stuff show. Check out our Facebook group.
Here's where it gets crazy. It's fantastic stuff written by
fantastic people like you. So go check it out. Talk
(53:03):
about the shows, Let's discuss, you know, some of the minutia.
Let's talk about future episodes. Let's hang out there together
on Facebook. If you're into that kind of thing. If
you're not, you can always give us a call.
Speaker 3 (53:16):
Our number is one eight three three st d w
y t K. Leave a message at the sound of
Ben's tone, his sultry tones, and it'll go to us.
All three of us have access to it. Though Matt
is still kind of the gatekeeper. I think Ben is
more the key master. But but Matt is Matt is
(53:37):
the gatekeeper.
Speaker 2 (53:37):
Wait, does that mean we have to copulated? I forget
how Win and Ghostbusters man, whatever, whatever, whatever you need, dude,
you need, so.
Speaker 1 (53:49):
You know, I do wonder which Ghostbusters we would be.
That's funny. I was. I got some spoilers about dan
Ackroyd possibly in the future, but we'll we'll catch up
on that down the road. Yes, as as Noel said,
give us a call. Matt is our Matt is our
phone guru. But we do all have access and we
(54:10):
are all listening in. It makes our day to hear
from you. Just let us know if you're comfortable with
your story, your name, or your specifics of your account
being shared on air, because we don't want to compromise you.
Speaker 2 (54:24):
Or if you're cool with us, you know, intentionally or
unintentionally calling you back.
Speaker 1 (54:29):
Yes, yes, if you're cool with us accidentally, but DIALI
and you full steam ahead. And if you hate all
of that stuff for one reason or another, we totally
get it and we as always have a backup plan.
You can email us directly.
Speaker 4 (54:45):
We are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (55:06):
Stuff they don't want you to know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Welcome back to the show, fellow conspiracy realist. This is
a classic episode while we were on the high seas.
We have a lot of folks that we call returning
guests on Stuff they Don't Want You to Know, because
they come in and out of all kinds of stories,
and for several years over the course of this show,
one guy who absolutely captivated our attention was the creator
(00:23):
of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
He was amongst one of the first dozen episodes that
we ever made of this iteration of stuff they Don't
want you to Know, and he made several appearances on
our video series on YouTube. So do check out YouTube
dot com, slash Conspiracy Stuff or at Conspiracy Stuff if
you will.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Well, it's so funny that this just came up because
I just got served a recommendation on one streaming app
or another for the Alex Gibney documentary We Steal Secrets,
the Story of WikiLeaks, which I had never got around
to watching, and it's on my list, and it reminded
me of this. And now, isn't there some kind of
like he's in the wind a little bit right now?
What's going on with old boy?
Speaker 1 (01:04):
Well, we know that he made it back to Australia
after we did this episode in twenty twenty, and from
statements by his brother Gabriel Shipton at the time, the
word on the street was he was still adjusting spending
time with his family because he went through some horrific
stuff right when it was locked up in the embassy.
(01:26):
We know that he attended some pro Palestinian protest in
the past year. He also went to some other notable events,
but he's been kind of keeping his head down. Yeah, Hey, do.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
You think Julian Massage would ever talk to us? Would
we want to talk to him?
Speaker 4 (01:43):
I think I would want to talk to him, absolutely.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
Yeah, I get text him. Okay, Ben, Well, well it's
someone who says they're Julian Massage. I think I just
put up like that my phone. But well, yeah, let's
reach out because I think it would be a fascinating
perspective and it's worth exploring, especially because we know the
reporting about this guy was so heavily tilted and influenced
(02:08):
by powerful forces when WikiLeaks was having its heyday in
the news.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
It's practically referred to as like a terrorist, like a
cyber terrorist.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Right, and for some he is a soldier in the
war for transparency. To others, he is portrayed as a
super villain. In this episode from twenty twenty, we ask
whatever happened to Julian Massage.
Speaker 4 (02:31):
But first let's hear a quick word from our sponsor.
Speaker 5 (02:34):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies, history is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of Iheartrading.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Noah.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
They call me Ben. We are joined as always with
our super producer, Paul Mission Controlled Decant. Most importantly, you
are you. You are here, and that makes this stuff
they don't want you to know. Today, we're focusing on
the story of one man, a single individual, a larger
than life figure who once upon a time dominated global news.
(03:25):
To some, he is an inspiring icon of free speech
and transparency, the kind of figure you'd build a statue for.
To others, he's a power mad super villain, an agent
of chaos, and to still others many people, he's just dangerous.
His name is Julian Assange.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
Our last update that we did on this show on
Julian Assange was almost exactly a year ago today. It
was May tenth, twenty nineteen, and today's May sixth, twenty twenty.
As we're recording this, so you know, we're not gonna
spend too much time in the background because previously we
have covered basically Julian Assauge's earlier situations. If you really
(04:08):
want to learn that stuff, you can go back to
those episodes. But for for today, we're gonna look at
where he is now, briefly, how he got there, and
the very very real, big picture issues that his current
situation is revealing.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
Do you guys think what makes people think super villain
is his like stark white hair. You know, it seems
like a really good feature for a for a like
a Superman villain of some kind.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Well, Ben Ben has his background right now in the
video chat we're doing. He's got a picture of Julian
back there, and to me, it doesn't feel very super villainous.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
I mean, that's the that's the issue. You know, we're
recording shows while we're several weeks into quarantine. But this guy,
this picture that I have in the background, he's he's
a quarantine master, you know, he's been on lockdown for
nearly seven year, so when they're pulling him out, he's
got the he's grown a beard that is as white
(05:05):
as his naturally white hair. And I think I could
agree with you, Noel, for especially for people who aren't
reading the specifics of what he does. If you just
see a headline in the picture of the guy and
you like Bond films, you might be tempted to say, yeah,
that guy looks like a super villain. A lot of
it will go into dress too, Like if he wore
(05:25):
a turtleneck more often, I think that would up the
Bond quotient. But maybe I'm thinking of the earlier Bond movies.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Maybe he had like a bionic hand or something, and
like a cat that he would stroke with that bionic hand.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Or a weird gun.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Is that is that, Inspector Gadget, No, what is that from?
Speaker 4 (05:44):
Yeah, doctor Claw, he stroked the weird cat with the
bionic arm. Yeah, okay, okay.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Then there's also Blowfeld in the James Bond movies, who
also had a cat.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Or at least at the at the very least Doctor
Claw had a metal gauntlet, but since they called it
a claw, like to think it was like a bionic
hand situation. So those are those are some speculations, right,
but let's get to the facts. So here are the facts.
The gist of Julian Nossange. You know, Julian Nossange was
(06:14):
born in Australia in nineteen seventy one July third. Specifically,
for a full look at his biography and his early
years his ascendants, if you will please check out our
previous episodes. What we'd like to give you by way
of background now is just a very high level look
at what you could call his career and the consequences
(06:37):
of his career path.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
So today, Asan is probably best known for his activism,
which inspired him to create the website Wiki Leagues in
two thousand and six. I think we're all pretty familiar
with wiki leaks, but let's think of it as kind
of a one stop shop for would.
Speaker 4 (06:54):
Be whistleblowers and leakers.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
Of classified documents and footage from around the world. In theory,
sort of a repository for all the stuff they don't
want you to know, regardless of who they might specifically be.
And Wiki Leak's gained international attention in April of twenty
ten when the organization released footage showing members of the
(07:18):
US military fatally shooting eighteen civilians, including journalists, from a
helicopter in Iraq.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
Yeah, that was sort of the leak heard around the world,
you know what I mean, I've.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Been I still remember being in the fish Bowl office
at our previous office when that footage was released, and
you and I discussing it almost immediately after it came out.
It was a very intense thing to witness, especially being
that it was not something that was ever meant to
get to us as you know, the American public or
(07:52):
the world public.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Right. Yeah, And on a personal note, I missed the
fish Bowl. Everyone listening if you checked out our YouTube
videos and maybe we talked about it occasionally, but that
was just so cool. Other than being nearly impossible to
film in, it was pretty cool. Long story short on
that one. It used to be a single person's office
(08:16):
and then we moved in and there were like seven
of us at one point six, six or seven anyway.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
At least six. Paul would know best.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Paul would know best. Oh yeah, that's right. Paul was
a fishbowler as well, and this footage rocked, not just
the fish Bowl, but the world, and at this point
won a pause and give you a heads up that
we are going to be talking about some things of
a sexual nature, so this may not be suitable for
all listeners. Later that same year, twenty ten, when he
(08:49):
released the footage, Assange was detained in the United Kingdom
because Sweden had issued an international arrest warrant over allegations
that he had sexually assaulted two women during his time
in the Scandinavian country.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Yeah Specifically, the allegations concerned the idea that he had
raped one woman and then molested and coerced another, all
during August tenth when he was in Stockholm to give
a lecture, and authorities were very motivated to question him
about these allegations. Assans maintained and continues to maintain to
(09:25):
this day, that both encounters were consensual, and this triggered
an extensive court battle. Eventually, he ended up seeking asylum
in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in order to avoid
possible extradition to either Sweden or ultimately the US, where
his actions with Wiki Leaks led him to believe he
(09:47):
would not receive a fair shake. Much like Chelsea Manning,
who partnered with Wiki leaks to leak that earlier footage
that we spoke about, and as we know, Chelsea Manning
was significantly demonized and the brunt of some very very
serious consequences.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Yeah. Yeah. Part of Chelsea Manning's case, though, goes into
the fact that Chelsea was a member of the US Army,
so there's some heavier consequences. But still you're right the
writings on the wall. Julian Essange very rightly thought that
he would not get a fair trial, and so it
(10:30):
was that he spent He tried to get to Ecuador proper,
but he ended up spending seven years almost hold up
in the embassy. And there were a lot of media
reports about him. You can see some interviews. They depicted
him in ways that sometimes sounded like propaganda or character
witness stuff. Now, now, to be fair, we have not
(10:53):
ourselves spoken with mister Assange, but he does have a
reputation of being a bit shall we say, contankerous, like
he'll walk out of an interview if he feels it's unfair.
His bedside manner, some journalists find it lacking, but you'll
see reports of him like being a bad HouseGuest, basically
(11:14):
like he wasn't cleaning up after his cat, and that
became How surreal is that that became an issue in
the embassy. He also had two children during this time.
He was finally arrested by British police on April eleventh,
twenty nineteen, right after the Ecuadorian President, Lennon Moreno announced
(11:34):
via Twitter again that the country had withdrawn his asylum
status along the way Sweden withdrew their earlier allegations. But
after he was dragged out of the embassy in that
picture that you guys can see behind me, which is
contrasted with what I think that's Game of Thrones? Which
(11:56):
character is that from Game of Thrones? I y lewin. Yeah,
that's a good call, I think so, Yeah, I think
you're right. So ultimately, the UK court sentenced him to
fifty weeks in jail on May first, twenty nineteen, not
for leaking documents, just for jumping bail, for breaching bail agreements.
And then that's when Swedish prosecutors reopened their investigation into
(12:21):
the allegations of sexual misconduct and assault.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Yeah, and you know Wiki leagues over the years that
it has been operating, both while Julian Assange was really
at the Helm and you know, doing day to day
operations as well as when he was in the embassy,
and there were others running wiki leaks, which it did
continue actively publishing releases for a while. There were a
(12:49):
ton of controversies that arose, you know, obviously from the
ones we've already outlined there, but countless others. And one
of the main ones that we talked about that you know,
the Iraq War tape, that specific video that was released.
It was a part of a larger Iraq war release
that was called the Iraq War Logs. It was also
(13:11):
called i think the Baghdad War Diaries, something to that effect.
So that tape was released in April of twenty ten.
Then the full Iraq War Logs were released in October
of twenty ten, and this was a trove of almost
four hundred thousand classified reports that, according to WikiLeaks and
(13:34):
other people who have gone through these documents, quote, document
the war and occupation in Iraq from the first of
January two thousand and four to the thirty first of
December two thousand and nine. And this is the thing
we were talking about, that the massive event. It was
everyone talking about this multiple countries and institutions weighed in
(13:56):
about what needed to happen because of this release, and
really everyone, especially the United States, went into damage control
because not only did this affect how the US government
and militaries were going to be looked at, it also
was going to affect how the allies of the United
States government were going to be scrutinized in the future.
(14:19):
It really was a big deal.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
Yeah, it's set massive precedent, you know, and there were
so many contradicting narratives when it plays so much attempt
to spin. It was very it's very difficult to watch
history being made because history books make it seem so clean,
(14:42):
so point A to point B, but there's so many
things that get lost in the shuffle. And that's just
one of the controversies. Right. We also know that later
wiki leaks in twenty ten leaked more than two hundred
and fifty thousand classified diplomatic cables. A cable here in
(15:04):
this sense is not like an HDMI cable or something.
It's and it's not like comcasts. It's a message, right,
It's a secret message that different embassies send to one another.
And these these privileged communications might be intelligence on the
ground from an intelligence agency. They might be something as
(15:27):
small as like the ambassador to Syria said that he
was willing to work with us on this, but I
just think I just think he was trying to get
me out of the room, because the man has notorious ibs.
Like it's very frank, behind the scenes kind of looks
at stuff. There are things the governments of the world
(15:49):
do not want the international public, other countries, or their
domestic constituents to know. So it is not, by any
means hyperbole to say that this fundamental rocked the world
of diplomacy, and the repercussions are still reverberating today. This
did some irreparable damage to international relations.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Yeah, I mean think about like if you were on
an email thread with like somebody, and then you thought
you had deleted that person temporarily from the thread and
sort of talking a bunch of trash about them with
your you know, cohorts, and then you realize that that
person actually was on the whole time. Not a good look.
This is sort of like a much larger scale version
(16:31):
of that, because as you said, Ben, I mean, these
could just be very candid, little snippy comments, you know,
and it's not like it would necessarily be stuff that
would blow open the doors of like, you know, any
kind of conflict necessarily directly or any kind of intelligence
that would you know, be just earth shattering.
Speaker 4 (16:50):
It's just a bad look.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
I mean, diplomacy in and of itself is about good
bedside manner and keeping those relationships healthy and stroking egos.
And this would do a whole lot of damage to
break down some of those relationships that a lot of
these diplomats had worked very hard to nurse and maintain.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
And by the way, if you want to see either
of these two subjects that we just talked about, the
Iraq warlogs or the diplomatic cables, you can find all
of that. It's all searchable on the WikiLeaks dot org website.
Just if you're curious or you know, you're feeling a
little dangerous, you can go check those out.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
Yeah, yeah, we should say one benefit of talking about
these past weeks is that they are all available, you
know what I mean. It reminds me of the streisand effect.
You guys know what that is, right, No, So the
streisand effect is essentially saying that once something is out there,
(17:48):
once something is published online, especially it cannot be removed
no matter how much someone wants it to be removed.
It's named after a picture of Barber streisand I believe
that she asked to be removed from the internet. And
you know, we all are familiar with the denizens of
the internet. That is the same thing as telling them
please pretty please spread this everywhere.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
Yeah, it was her Malibu home as of two thousand
and three. I believe that she was attempting to remove.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
That's right, And you could see the argument there because
it's like, hey, this is, you know, my personal dwelling place.
But this situation reminds me of something very funny. I
don't know if I mentioned it to you guys when
the wikileak stuff really started hitting, but there were internal
emails throughout the intelligence industry, which is the right word,
(18:40):
and throughout the defense industry where people were literally telling
government employees, hey, we know this is out there, it's
on the news, it's online, just so you know, you
will get in trouble if you read it unless you
have the correct classification. And that was such an attempt
to like close the barn door after the horses have
(19:01):
stampeded away. We just didn't have the legislation for this,
and that's part of why it rocked the world so fundamentally.
And that's not even we're not even talking about twenty sixteen, right,
but the emails, because later WikiLeaks released some twenty thousand
pages of emails from the Hillary Clinton campaign, as we'll
(19:22):
call former Secretary of State Clinton was running for US
president in twenty sixteen, and also emails from the Democratic
National Committee. It is again not hyperbole to say that
these altered the course of US politics in a big,
big way.
Speaker 4 (19:38):
Yeah, it's true.
Speaker 3 (19:38):
I mean the emails which later became part of the
internet catchphrase.
Speaker 5 (19:43):
You know.
Speaker 3 (19:43):
But her emails explored and expanded on multiple Clinton controversies
that had already been out there in the public imagination,
and we discussed some of those early on in the
campaign between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, where we did Trump,
you know, the most popular Trump and Clinton conspiracy theories,
and the Clinton conspiracy theories are massive because they involve
(20:05):
both her and her husband, and the questionable relationship between
the Clinton Foundation and its donors.
Speaker 4 (20:12):
Clinton's kind of you know.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
Close knit relationships, shall we say, with some very powerful
Wall Street interests that became problematic especially considering that she
kind of, you know, was trying to cast herself as
sort of the people's candidate and her incredibly close ties
with very wealthy and powerful campaign contributors. This is just
(20:37):
you know, beginning to scratch the service. But it's fair
to say that the League's played a huge role in
the outcome of that year's presidential election. And it also,
you know, I mean, I think a lot of people
looked at as Songs early on as sort of this
great equalizer, you know, and trying to take powerful people
to task. And that's all well and good if the
(21:00):
outcome is on your side, right, And so I think
he really became a hugely divisive figure on the left
when this happened, and it started to feel like he
was perhaps more interested in getting the other side elected,
and that became very confusing. Part of his character really
kind of complicated the relationship with the public and Julian Assange.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
I would say two things here. I recently listened to
Glenn Greenwald, now of the Intercept, that's how he's best
known currently, but a journalist who is discussing how Julian
Assange really does represent a largely hated figure on both
the political left and right within the United States because
(21:48):
of you know, the people who would consider him anti
war or anti you know, military, because of the Iraq
war logs and other things and the diplomatic cables. They
they very much dislike him from that angle. And then
from this, like you said, and the people on political
left very much dislike him because they essentially blame him
for Hillary Clinton losing the election. One commonality that we've
(22:12):
seen through these leaks is that it is attempting, at
least it feels that it's an attempt to show that
behind the curtain scene of the powerful people in every
single one of these that we just that we've already
kind of mentioned here. And I guess when you are
doing that and showing a peek behind the curtain of
all powerful people, you're gonna kind of piss everybody off.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
Yeah, yeah, agreed, very much so. And you know, I
want to ask you guys here just an opinion. You know,
do are you all of the opinion that this that
this did significantly atpack the election or was it? I mean,
how much do you think it swung the needle?
Speaker 2 (22:58):
I would say it swung the needle. I mean, my
opinion is that. Yes, for sure, it did because it
changed the conversation that was happening on the news cycle
almost like right up into the election, right up into
the day of the election. It really did change what
people were talking about.
Speaker 4 (23:19):
Oh no, I mean, I think that's there's no question
about it.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
It absolutely hijacked the conversation in a way that Clinton
was just not able to put back in that Pandora's box,
you know, And it really completely took away her power
to kind of steer the narrative, which, you know, say
what you will about whichever side of politics that you
(23:44):
fall on. She definitely was trying very hard to cast
herself in this light of being kind of the people's candidate,
of being this sort of you know, even handed person
that wasn't connected to any kind of wrongdoing and that
she really cared about the everyman for lack of a
better term, and this really kind of shattered a lot
(24:06):
of that, and it made it at least whether it
was true or not, at least the contents of the
emails and the nature of the whole private server situation,
and whether or not she completely flaunt flouted the rules
and just went her own way. It really robbed her
of the ability and her campaign of the ability to
steer that narrative, and it was just impossible to spin
(24:26):
it at that point.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Yeah, it's the old saying holds true. If you are
defending yourself in any kind of political sphere, then you
are automatically losing. The fascists were right about it. The
Republicans and the Democrats were right about it. It's just
sort of the part of the part of the house
(24:49):
rules of these terrible, terrible games. But there you have it.
Here's the takeaway. A single man, flesh and blood, just
as many of the people listening to the show today
are unelected, himself, was able to shake the world. You
can understand why so many powerful people consider him dangerous.
(25:14):
When we last left Julian Assange, he had been removed
from the Ecuadorian embassy. All indications appeared that he would
continue on a legal battle at a glacial pace, likely
from prison as he sought to avoid extradition and probably
in his impossible death in the United States. So where
(25:37):
are we at now? We'll answer the question after a
word from our sponsors. Here's where it gets crazy. What's
happening now? Well, it turns out the conspiracy to expose
conspiracies has not worked out especially well for Julian as Songe.
Speaker 3 (26:01):
Yes, you'll recall how he said. As Songe was sent
us to fifty weeks in jail. Well, he was due
to be released in September of twenty nineteen, the twenty
second specifically, when is jail term for breaching that bail
ended and they just didn't let him out. The Westminster
Magistrates Court noted that there were substantial grounds for believing
(26:24):
if free as Songe would make another run attempting to
gain safe status, or like Edward Snowden, make it to
a country that would not extradite him to the United States.
I mean it's sort of you know, it's just the
same way a court assesses anyone's risk of flight. You know,
they won't grant you bail, or they'll make your bail
excessively high if they think or if they even think
(26:47):
that you're going to flee, let alone, if you've got
an established pattern of doing that, which as Songe absolutely
had so. Julian Assange remains in the Belmarsh Prison in
the United Kingdom. His partner, lawyer Stella Morris, who he
has two children with, recently said quote, the life of
my partner Julian Assan is severely at risk. He is
(27:09):
on remand at HMP Belmarsh, and COVID nineteen is spreading
within its walls. So this is absolutely a topical update.
Speaker 4 (27:18):
Here.
Speaker 3 (27:19):
Morris sees more than just a song's personal health in
jeopardy here saying that quote, Julian needs to be released now,
for him, for our family, and for the society we
all want our children to grow up in. Yeah, Okay, yeah,
I mean, you know, it depends on what your take
(27:40):
is on that particular vision of society that a songe espouses,
you know. And again, I mean a big part of
his character is the idea of like free speech and
about you know, taking powerful people to task. But he
is absolutely, has been and remains a super divisive figure.
So let's talk about a bigger picture issue here that
we've a little bit in some of our COVID nineteen updates,
(28:03):
the risk of coronavirus and prisons.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
Well, yeah, it's certainly a hairy situation for anyone who
is being kept anywhere within fairly close quarters to other
human beings, especially if there are any kind of sanitary
issues within let's say a prison like that, And in
prisons across the world, people are being infected with coronavirus
(28:28):
because it only takes one person to enter that closed
system at some point to then infect one other and
then exponentially grow that outbreak. But in this particular prison
HMP Belmarsh where Julian Assange is at least two people
within the prison have contracted COVID nineteen or have they've
contracted the coronavirus and are dealing with symptoms of COVID nineteen.
(28:51):
And prisons just in general are pretty rough places to
be with individuals who have attributes and possibly charges pending
against them for varying things of varying severities, and in
you know, these uncertain times, there are higher than average
odds of things like violence occurring within prisons where there's
(29:13):
that kind of fear of something like coronavirus or uprisings
or you know, maybe even riots, very violent riots occurring
within these prisons.
Speaker 1 (29:22):
Yeah, yeah, that's absolutely correct. In fact, there are numerous
reports already of riots about prison conditions in the US
and abroad, and in some countries prisoners have even successfully
taken guards hostage, not even necessarily to say, hey, we're
throwing down the prison walls, let my people go. But
(29:44):
more to say, we need to bring attention to the
pandemic bloodbath that may occur when we are locked in
here like animals for whatever reason. So this, this prison
angle has a lot of fairly plausible conspiratorial aspects to it,
because you know, we've seen the kind of manufactured concerns
(30:08):
that pop up in other celebrity prison stories. Someone has
a high paid lawyer, like someone working for Weinstein or something,
who says, you know, he's very fragile. Therefore, even though
he's been convicted of these crimes, he should get some
sort of special treatment because it's the human thing to do.
By the way, for R and B fans, R Kelly
(30:30):
is looking for the same thing, the argument being that
he has diabetes and COVID is going to blow through
prison systems. But in Assanja's case, there's solid evidence that
his life may be at risk more so than a Weinstein,
more so than an R.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
Kelly, because not as much as a an ep free Epstein,
not as much as an Epstein.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
Right, we should call that we should make the Epstein scale.
If the you know, fellow conspiracy realist. If you have
the time and the inclination, please feel free to make
an infographic of the Epstein scale the likelihood have died
in prison.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
You know, I would I just really quickly bet. This
is a very interesting thing to think about, because the
reason Julian Assange is in jail, you know, is officially
because of jumping bail, but really, when you put all
of the math together, it's because he had damning evidence
against very powerful people, right or he was able to
(31:34):
release information about powerful people in the actions they take.
Speaker 4 (31:38):
That.
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Then you think about somebody like Jeffrey Epstein that very
likely at least allegedly had the worst kind of evidence
against extremely powerful people, and we saw what happened to him.
You know, who knows if it was. Look, we can't
prove to you if it was self inflicted or not
(31:59):
self inflicted in his case, but he was only in
prison for a short time, That's all I would.
Speaker 1 (32:04):
Say, Right, Yeah, it's very much worth pointing out that
plenty of powerful people wants this guy dead, even if
they can't kill WikiLeaks, which is also on the wish list.
We should note that, you know, the Trump administration is
currently attempting to extradite assage to the US. However, remember
(32:31):
we're very quickly going into the no real good guy's
morally gray territory because the desire to gain possession of
assage transcends the growing stark ideological divide in domestic US politics.
Establishment Democrats want the guy under the jail or under
the daisies as much as establishment Republicans. He has very
(32:55):
few friends in Congress, you know what I mean, And
it's kind of misleading. That's why I appreciate the point
you made knowl earlier about people liking a hero or
calling someone a hero until their principles, whatever they may be,
run counter to our own principles.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
It's just the idea of like one person's freedom fighter
is another person's terrorist. It all depends on what side
of the issue you fall A lot of the times,
you know, I mean, certainly both sides can be guilty
of what would be considered negative acts or even atrocities.
But still, in terms of the way you view the
(33:33):
means justifying the ends, you could probably say, well, they
might have done some bad things, but they were ultimately
supporting what I think is a just cause.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
And oh and we should point out a in a
no way, baby, but kind of moment. Let me tell
you what really happened. The US is still kind of
in damage control over this, and has been since two
thousand and six, so for more than a decade they've
been in damage control here in the States. Uncle Sam
(34:04):
says Assange is not wanted because he caught the US
doing some bad things red handed, or because he damaged
the soft power of the reputation abroad, or because he
embarrassed the US. They say he's wanted because he illegally
endangered the lives of informants aka spies or assets, dissidents
(34:30):
aka also possibly spies or assets, but maybe you know,
maybe sincere dissidents as well as activist aka spies or assets.
But hey, maybe maybe activists in multiple countries including of
course rock Iran and Afghanistan. So what what? What gives?
Speaker 4 (34:50):
What?
Speaker 1 (34:50):
What is he actually going to be charged with or
indicted for?
Speaker 2 (34:55):
Do we know? Yeah, there is an indictment impending charges
standing against Julian Assange from the United States, And I'm
gonna boil it down to you in the way that
Jennifer Robinson explained it in a recent conversation with Glenn Greenwald.
She's a human rights attorney and she's representing Assannge, and
(35:16):
she explains it that the charges essentially state that Assonge
was communicating had communications of some sort with Chelsea Manning
at the time known as Bradley Manning, and that Assannge
discussed with Chelsea ways in which she could access highly
classified materials in a way that would protect her identity.
(35:38):
That's really what it's saying. That's the whole thing. Assannge
was in connection with Chelsea Manning, and Chelsea Manning got
the materials to him and then he released them. And also,
according to Jennifer, there's a widely held misconception that's just
kind of been floating around and it started from this
Department of Justice press release that came out out not
(36:01):
that long ago, and within this release it falsely stated,
at least according to Robinson, that as Soonge was being
charged with quote hacking, so in some way using you know,
a computer or a system to access classified government materials
and then get those for Chelsea or with Chelsea Manning,
(36:23):
because you know, we discussed Chelsea Manning is the person
who ended up getting a lot of that documentation that
became the IRAQ warlogs and the tapes. So just the
last thing here is that, according to Jennifer Robinson, within
that indictment, there is no allegation that Assonge attempted to
(36:43):
hack the US government in any way to get to
gain material. There's also no allegation within that indictment that
he unlawfully accessed any government computers or systems whatsoever. That's
just just to put it out there. In conclusion, the
charges are that he had a discussion with Chelsea Manning
(37:05):
about how to hide her identity while accessing secret documents.
Speaker 1 (37:11):
Okay, and then once that kind of stuff proceeds, if
it does indeed proceed, then we'll see those kind of
charges become increasingly specific as prosecutors explore their options. So
this naturally leads us to the next part of the update,
(37:33):
which is this what's on the horizon. We'll explore that
after a word from our sponsors. We've returned. So just
a few days ago, as we record this peak behind
(37:54):
the curtain interest of transparency. It is May sixth, Wednesday,
A lovely day outside in Atlanta. As far as I can.
Speaker 4 (38:03):
Tell, Blustery, I would say, yes, I love it.
Speaker 1 (38:06):
I was writing on the porch. I wish I could
record out there. Just a few days ago, Juliannassange received
word that he will have to wait until at least
September of twenty twenty before a British judge will hear
the US request for his extradition. This comes to us
from a possibly biased source. To be fair, Kristen Fraftsman,
(38:29):
the editor in chief of WikiLeaks. Earlier they said a
video posted on social media that it's unacceptable and confirmed
that ASSANGEO likely has to spend another four months at
least in prison, and if a hearing does come to
pass in September, that means that he will have spent
one year in prison after being dragged out of that
(38:51):
embassy on his what was that on his charge of
fifty weeks for jumping and bail.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
Yeah, that he was supposed to be let out. What'd
you say last year?
Speaker 1 (39:01):
Yes, yeah, that's correct. And additionally, the editor there at
WikiLeaks said he was not able to set a sounge,
that was not able to attend some earlier hearings via
video link because he was unwell. So that gives us,
unless that spin, that gives us a pretty solid argument
(39:24):
that at least in his case, the health concerns are real.
Reporters said he was deteriorating mentally already when he was
in the Ecuadorian embassy.
Speaker 3 (39:34):
So the fate of a Songe may actually set a
legal precedent in the United States. Regardless of where you
stand with these leaks. In particular, it can't really be
denied that they pushed the public in multiple countries to
hold politicians accountable and well attempt to do so.
Speaker 4 (39:51):
Anyway.
Speaker 3 (39:52):
Imagine a world where any disclosure, even if it's incredibly
vital to the public interest, becomes a crime.
Speaker 4 (40:00):
And that's like dystopian kind of stuff right there.
Speaker 3 (40:03):
Whistleblower protections, which have historically been better on paper than
in actual practice, have truly eroded in the time since
a Soinge was kind of at his peak. Consider that
other countries like China and Russia have already started intimidating
civilians for quote rumor mongering end quote. As we've discussed
(40:23):
in the COVID nineteen episodes, the scientists that reported the
early signs of that virus was accused of that very
thing and essentially blackballed and treated like a criminal. And
that was a big part of what we can now
call some form of cover up.
Speaker 1 (40:42):
Yeah. Yeah, And Russian doctors keep falling out of windows.
One fell out of a window after he made a
video update where he's protesting being forced to work despite
not having ppe personal protective equipment and despite having tested
positive for COVID, they still wanted him to work. And
then just a few days later he released a video
(41:05):
where he said that was all crazy. He denied any
of those claims, everything was fine, and then he fell
out of a window. I don't know if you guys
would keep a track of that, but yeah, make no mistake,
there is a war for information. That war is very old,
but now there is a war on information.
Speaker 4 (41:23):
Hmm.
Speaker 2 (41:24):
This is very true and you can see that depending
on the outcome of Julian Osandra's situation, this could have
a supreme impact on the future of potential whistleblowers like
you were saying, Noel, And it has a lot to
do with the fact that if you decide to leak
(41:45):
information somewhere and you could be hunted down essentially by
the government that you were blowing the whistle on. I mean,
it would really set a precedent for that. And the
big problem here it bans from the individual whistleblower to
the outlets, the major news outlets that cover stories about
(42:07):
leaked information. If if you're recalled, during the Iraq warlogs
Saga of twenty ten, as well as the diplomatic cables,
the DNC emails, these were major releases done in conjunction
with newspapers. It wasn't just WikiLeaks putting out information in
with the Iraq warlogs. That was the Guardian, that was
(42:29):
the New York Times. I think Despiegel released part of
that information. They all kind of segmented it out. It
was all, you know, major news outlets releasing leaked material
via WikiLeaks. And this is something we have to remember.
Major news outlets, let's say, like the Guardian or the
(42:51):
New York Times, these news outlets have on their sites
easily accessible methods for anyone to anonymously provide newsworthy information
to those outlets. Essentially, if we're thinking about it in
this framework, aiding and abetting potential whistleblowers. And we have
two examples of this. You can go to the Guardian
(43:14):
dot com slash secure drop right now to check out
the way that they want you to give them leaked
information or to leak them information securely and anonymously. You
can also go to ny times dot com slash tips
to see how The New York Times wants you to
do it. They're suggesting that you use WhatsApp and signal
(43:35):
and secure drop to make contact with them and then
to send them materials. And you know, if the whistleblower
individual falls because of Julian Osandra's situation, it would also
make sense that perhaps the you know, journalism is the
way we understand it, leaked important information would become in
(43:57):
some ways illegal.
Speaker 1 (43:59):
Yeah, and then maybe your past actions could become prosecutable offenses.
There's one thing. I did this on a different show.
I wanted to mention this to you guys because I
thought you would find it interesting, and hopefully you will too,
fellow listeners, speaking of censorship, a completely different person who
(44:19):
perhaps sees themselves as a whistleblower has run into what
they say as a conspiracy of censorship. David Ike just
had his YouTube channel deleted. Will not be going back up.
I think around nine hundred thousand subscribers. His Facebook page
(44:40):
was also deleted because the tech companies are instituting a
ban against anybody spreading misinformation about the coronavirus. So, as
you can imagine, there are a lot of people who
are saying, yes, you have to do this because he's
endangering lives, which is similar to the argument made by
the US government about assage. And then you have people
(45:02):
who are saying, you know, I might not agree with
this guy at all, but he is he is exercising
free speech. It's a little sticky there, you know, when
we start to navigate the idea of public safety, censorship,
free speech, because with great speech comes great responsibility, does
(45:23):
it not, And you know, you have to ask yourself
about the platform there. But but tech companies are a
little different, of course, because it's their sandbox. They make
the rules, they can do whatever they want. I just
think it's interesting that we're seeing more and more of
these these information conflicts rising to the foe. And this
(45:45):
is in no way an endorsement of David Ike.
Speaker 2 (45:48):
Yeah, assuredly.
Speaker 1 (45:50):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (45:52):
I just wanted to bring this up where we're talking
about kind of the control of speech on outlets like that,
on platforms such as YouTube. I just wanted to mention
to you guys. I don't know if you saw the
email come through. We got contacted by our old pals
at All Time Conspiracies. Some of you older conspiracy realists
(46:14):
may remember a time on YouTube when we made some
videos with the guys on this channel called All Time Conspiracies,
and I did a little catching up with them, and
they've written back to us. They went through the exact
same issues we did with the YouTube algorithm and their
(46:34):
content being suppressed essentially because they were talking about political issues,
conspiratorial issues, and they ended up having to shutter their
channel and they've moved on. So if anyone is interested
they want to do an episode with us, They've got
a podcast now similarly to ours. So I thought that
(46:55):
might be a fun matchup mash up in the podcast
world now instead of on video, just to talk about
what happened to our YouTube channels.
Speaker 1 (47:04):
I would be interested in that for sure. What do
you think, Nol?
Speaker 3 (47:07):
Absolutely? Yeah, no, I mean always down for a good
collab with like minded folks.
Speaker 1 (47:13):
And this leads us to one more potential development. So
we are at a we are at a branch. We
are possible forks in the road, and as Yogi Bearrap
You'll announcer famously said, when you come to a fork
in the road take it. Sorry that jokes for you, Dad,
(47:33):
But this we do see some very important, mutually exclusive
things on the horizon. One of these things is going
to happen to Julian Assange. One He may die in
prison before that extradition hearing occurs or before it is
carried through, and then for some very powerful people, a
(47:59):
big part of the problem would have solved itself. However,
we have to remember, you know, like Jay Gavera famously
said in his last words, shoot fool, you're only killing
a man. WikiLeaks wouldn't die if asanj did, it would continue.
It's not a perfect system, and there are allegations, as
(48:19):
I believe one of us mentioned earlier, that it has
a shifting agenda of its own, you know, including pretty
serious allegations that have partnered with Russia to wage some
sort of asymmetrical information warfare against the US. So one
possible occurrence is that he dies in prison. End of story.
Speaker 2 (48:36):
And we're talking there, you know, about one person dying
in the movement continuing. We're also talking earlier about maybe
it would prevent other whistleblowers from coming forward. But if
he did die in prison, the other scenario is that
maybe more whistleblowers come forward because they see it almost
as a martyrdom situation, where the way he was treated
(48:59):
and how it all went down, they want to stick
it to the man essentially and continue in that legacy
outside of what he leaks.
Speaker 1 (49:09):
Mm hmm. And now we have to ask ourselves, what
about the precedents If he goes to trial, it's going
to be even more crucial, you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (49:20):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (49:21):
Then, I mean here, let's be a little bit idyllic,
at least from his perspective. What if a songe is
able to stay in the United Kingdom the same way,
for instance, that Edward Snowden is currently staying in Russia. Uh,
it probably won't happen. What if he's able to escape
and live on the run, you know, like that Beatles
(49:43):
Is it Beatles? Or is just Paul McCartney band on
the run? That's it? Thank you? Yeah? So what if
he pulls that just for the rest of his life?
Speaker 5 (49:54):
Uh song on the run?
Speaker 1 (49:56):
There we go. Yeah, we'll figure out who Sailor's saying?
Is that in that regard? I guess it's Uncle Sam.
But here's the question, what if what if Assane goes
to a US court, gets extra died, it goes to
trial and gets found somehow not guilty, it gets off
scott free. Don't worry about that too much, because that
is almost definitely not going to happen.
Speaker 2 (50:19):
Yeah, he would end up going to jail again, right,
And I could I could see a scenario like that, Ben,
where he does end up going to jail in the
United States and then just goes away and then every
once in a while, one journalist from one outlet will
write a piece on it once a year.
Speaker 5 (50:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (50:40):
Well, you know, I think one thing we can all
agree on, Fellas, is that Wings has an enormous fan base,
you know, an army across the world, and they probably
won't let this story die because, you know, now that
I'm thinking back on it, I'm pretty sure that the
(51:01):
entire catalog of Wings is terribly prescient to the career
and the controversy that is Julian A. Sounge. I've got
I've got to look out the lyrics. This goes deep.
We need to get Paul McCartney on the phone. Who
can call Paul McCartney, Matt Noel, can you do it?
Speaker 3 (51:17):
You know, it's funny you should say that I'm actually
working on a podcast with Paul McCartney's guitarist, So may
well have an end to Macca. Nice perfect, They call
him Macca. They call him Macca like the guitarist calls
him Mecca. That's a that's a big big Paul fans
call him like McCartney Macca. Oh okay, wow wow, it's
(51:38):
like a pet name.
Speaker 1 (51:39):
Or like McDonald's slaying for in Australia like McCaw.
Speaker 4 (51:45):
I just called him poll.
Speaker 1 (51:47):
So so that's where we are now, and to you
from failing hands, we throw the torch, be yours to
hold it high. If you break faith with us who die,
we shall not sleep. Though poppies grow and flanders Field
went on a little longer than it needed to, but
you get the picture. We want to know two things
from you. First, what do you think should happen to
(52:10):
Julian Aesonge and others like him or those who come
after him? Secondly, what do you think will happen to
this notorious whistleblowing mastermind? Let us know. You can find
us on Facebook, you can find us on Instagram, you
can find us on Twitter as a show and as individuals.
Speaker 2 (52:29):
Yes you can, and just one last question I want
to pose to you, what do you think the next
big leak will be about? Because there will be another
big leak.
Speaker 1 (52:38):
I'm gonna blow this wings thing wide open.
Speaker 2 (52:40):
I'm telling you, all right, Well, we've got a nomination
from this side. Let us know what you think. Like
Ben said, you could find us usually at Conspiracy Stuff,
sometimes at Conspiracy Stuff show. Check out our Facebook group.
Here's where it gets crazy. It's fantastic stuff written by
fantastic people like you. So go check it out. Talk
(53:03):
about the shows, Let's discuss, you know, some of the minutia.
Let's talk about future episodes. Let's hang out there together
on Facebook. If you're into that kind of thing. If
you're not, you can always give us a call.
Speaker 3 (53:16):
Our number is one eight three three st d w
y t K. Leave a message at the sound of
Ben's tone, his sultry tones, and it'll go to us.
All three of us have access to it. Though Matt
is still kind of the gatekeeper. I think Ben is
more the key master. But but Matt is Matt is
(53:37):
the gatekeeper.
Speaker 2 (53:37):
Wait, does that mean we have to copulated? I forget
how Win and Ghostbusters man, whatever, whatever, whatever you need, dude,
you need, so.
Speaker 1 (53:49):
You know, I do wonder which Ghostbusters we would be.
That's funny. I was. I got some spoilers about dan
Ackroyd possibly in the future, but we'll we'll catch up
on that down the road. Yes, as as Noel said,
give us a call. Matt is our Matt is our
phone guru. But we do all have access and we
(54:10):
are all listening in. It makes our day to hear
from you. Just let us know if you're comfortable with
your story, your name, or your specifics of your account
being shared on air, because we don't want to compromise you.
Speaker 2 (54:24):
Or if you're cool with us, you know, intentionally or
unintentionally calling you back.
Speaker 1 (54:29):
Yes, yes, if you're cool with us accidentally, but DIALI
and you full steam ahead. And if you hate all
of that stuff for one reason or another, we totally
get it and we as always have a backup plan.
You can email us directly.
Speaker 4 (54:45):
We are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (55:06):
Stuff they don't want you to know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.