May 22, 2020 • 52 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?
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
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):
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 I Heart Brading. Hello, welcome back to the show.
(00:25):
My name is Matt, my name is Nol. They called
me Ben. We are joined as always with our super
producer Paul Mission Controlled Decond. 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
(00:46):
figure who once upon a time dominated global news. 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 and the agent of chaos.
And to still others, many people, he's just dangerous. His
(01:09):
name is Julian Assange. Our last update that we did
on this show on Julian Assange was almost exactly a
year ago today. It was May ten, nineteen, and today's
May six. As we're recording this, so you know, we're
not going to spend too much time in the background
because previously we have covered basically Julian osangees earlier situations.
(01:33):
If you really 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 in the very very real, big picture issues
that his current situation is revealing. Do you guys think
what makes people think super villain is his like stark
white hair, you know, and it seems like a really
(01:53):
good um feature for a for a like a Superman
villain of some kind. 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. I mean, that's the that's
the issue. Uh. You know, we're recording shows while we're
(02:15):
several weeks into quarantine. But this guy, this picture that
I have in the background, Uh, he's he's a quarantined master.
You know, he's been on lockdown for nearly seven years.
So when they're pulling him out, Uh, he's got the
he's grown a beard that is as white as his
naturally white hair. And uh, I think I could agree
with you know, for especially for people who aren't reading
(02:38):
the specifics of what he does. If you just see
a headline in the picture of the guy and you
like Bond films, uh, you might be tempted to say, Yeah,
that guy looks like a super villain. A lot of
it would go into dress too, Like if he wore
a turtleneck more often. I think that would up the
Bond quotition. But maybe I'm thinking of the earlier Bond
movies maybe had like a bionic hand or some thing,
(03:00):
and like a cat that he would stroke with that
bionic hand or a weird gun. Is that is that,
inspector gadget? No, what is that from? Yeah? Dr Claw
he stroked the weird cat with the bionic arm. Yeah, okay, okay.
Then there's also blowfeld in uh in the James Bond movies,
who also had a cat, or at least at the
(03:20):
at the very least uh. Dr Claw had a metal gauntlet,
but since they called it a claw, I like to
think it was like a bionic hands situation. So those
are those are some speculations, right, but let's let's get
to the facts. So here are the facts. The gist
of Julian Osange. You know, Julian Osange was born in
(03:40):
Australia in nineteen seventy one July three, specifically for a
full look at his biography and his early years his ascendants,
if you will please check out our previous episodes. Well
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 of his career path.
(04:04):
So today, Assan just probably best known for his activism,
which inspired him to create the website Wiki Leagues in
two thousand six. Um. I think we're all pretty familiar
with Wiki leagues, but let's think of it as kind
of a one stop shop for would be whistleblowers and
leakers of classified documents and footage from around the world. Uh.
(04:27):
In theory, sort of a repository for all the stuff
they don't want you to know, um, regardless of who
the they might specifically be. And Wiki Leagues gained international
attention in April when the organization released footage showing members
of the U. S Military fatally shooting eighteen civilians, including journalists,
(04:49):
from a helicopter in Iraq. Yeah, that was sort of
the the leak heard round the world. You know what
I mean, man, 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, um,
(05:11):
especially being that it was not something that was ever
meant to to get to us as you know, the
American public or the world public. Right. Yeah, And uh,
on a personal note, I missed the fish Bowl. Everyone listening,
I if you checked out our YouTube videos, maybe we
talked about it occasionally, but that was just so cool.
(05:31):
Other than being nearly impossible to film in it was
it was pretty cool. Uh, long story short on that
when it was it used to be a single person's
office and then uh we moved in and there were
like seven of us at one point six, six or seven,
and or at least six. Paul would know best. Paul
would know best. Oh yeah, that's right, Paul. Paul was
(05:53):
fish bowler as well, and this footage rocked not just
the fish Bowl but the world. And at this point
want to 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 when he released the footage,
(06:16):
A slade was detained in the United Kingdom because Sweden
had issued an international arrest for over allegations that he
had sexually assaulted two women during his time in the
Scandinavian country. Yeah. Specifically, the allegations UH concerned the idea
that he had raped one woman and then molested and
(06:36):
coerced another, all during August ten when he was in
Stockholm to give a lecture, and authorities UM were very
motivated to question him about these allegations. Assange maintained and
continues to maintain to this day, that both encounters were consensual,
and this triggered an extensive court battle. Eventually, he ended
(06:58):
up UM seeking US asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London,
UH in order to avoid possible extradition to either Sweden
or ultimately the US, where his actions with Wiki Leaks
led him to believe he would not receive a fair shake,
much like Chelsea Manning who partnered with Wiki Leaks to
(07:20):
leak that earlier footage that we spoke about. And as
we know, Chelsea Manning was UH significantly demonized and the
brunt of some very very serious consequences. Yeah, Yeah, part
of Chelsea Manning's case. That goes into the fact that
(07:41):
Chelsea was a member of the U. S. Army. So
there there's some heavier consequences. But still you're right the
writings on the wall. Uh, julian As Solinge very rightly
thought that he would not get a fair trial, and
so it was that he spent He tried to get
to Ecuador proper, but he ended up in seven years
(08:01):
almost hold up in the embassy. And there were a
lot of media reports about him. You can see some interviews. Uh.
They they depicted him in ways that sometimes sounded like
propaganda or character witness stuff. Now, now, to be fair,
we have not ourselves spoken uh with Mr Sange, but
(08:22):
he does have a reputation of being a bit shall
we say, cantankerous, Like he'll walk out of an interview
if he feels it's unfair. Uh. He his bedside manner.
Some journalists find it lacking. But you'll see reports of
him like being a bad HouseGuest, basically, like he wasn't
cleaning up after his cat and that became How surreal
(08:43):
is that that became an issue in the embassy. Uh.
He also had two children during this time. He was
finally arrested by British police on April eleven, right after
the Ecuadorian president, Lennon Moreno announced v you Twitter again
that the country had withdrawn his asylum status along the
(09:06):
way Sweden withdrew their earlier allegations. But after he was
dragged out of the embassy and that picture that you
guys can see behind me, which is contrasted with what
I think that's Game of Thrones? Which character is that
from Game of Thrones? I'm Master Lewin. Yeah, that's a
(09:27):
good call, I think so, Yeah, I think you're right. Um. So,
ultimately the UK court sentenced him to fifty weeks in
jail on May one, not for leaking documents, just for
jumping bail, for breaching bail agreements. And then uh, that's
when Swedish prosecutors reopened their investigation into the allegations of
(09:48):
sexual misconduct and assault. Yeah, and you know wiki leagues
over the years that it is been operating, both while
Julian Ossaunders 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. Um, actively publishing releases for a while. UM.
(10:14):
There were a 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 the Iraq War tape, that specific
video that was released. UH. It was a part of
a larger Iraq war release that was called the Iraq
(10:35):
War Logs. It was also called i think the Baghdad
War Diaries something to that effect. UM. So that that
tape was released in April of then the full Iraq
War Logs were released in October of and this was
a trove of almost four hundred thousand classified reports that,
(10:58):
according to Wiki Leaks and other people who have gone
through these documents, quote, document the war and occupation in
Iraq from the first of January two thousand four to
the thirty one of December two thousand nine. And this
is the thing we were talking about that UM, the
massive event. It was everyone talking about this. Multiple countries
(11:20):
and institutions weighed in 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. We're gonna be scrutinized
(11:43):
in the future. Um. It really was a big deal. Yeah,
it's massive precedent, you know. Um. And 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,
(12:08):
so point A to point B. But there there's so
many things that get lost in the shuffle. And that's
that's just one of the controversies. Right. We also know
that later wiki leaks, uh In leaked more than two
hundred and fifty thousand classified diplomatic cables. A cable here
(12:30):
in this sense is not like an HDMI cable or something.
It's and it's not like Comcast. It's uh it's a message, right,
It's a secret message that different embassies send to one another. UH.
And these these privileged communications might be intelligence on the
ground from an intelligence agency. They might be something as
(12:53):
small as like the uh ambassador to Syria said that
he is 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 it's very frank, behind the scenes
kind of looks at stuff. There are things the governments
(13:14):
of the world 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 fundamentally rocked
the world of diplomacy, and the repercussions are still reverberating today.
This did some irreparable damage to international relations. Yeah, I
(13:36):
mean if they think, 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 threat
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,
uh scale version of that, because as you said, Ben,
(13:59):
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, um,
any kind of conflict necessarily directly or any kind of
intelligence that would, you know, be just earth shattering. It's
just a bad look. I mean, diplomacy in and of
itself is about good bedside manner and keeping those relationships
(14:22):
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 would worked very hard
to uh nurse and maintain. And by the way, if
you want to see either of these two subjects that
we just talked about, the Iraq war logs or the
diplomatic cables, you can find all of that. It's all
(14:43):
searchable on the wiki leaks dot org website. Just if
you're curious or you know you're feeling a little dangerous,
you can go check those out. Yeah, yeah, we should
say one benefit of talking about these past leaks is
that they are all available, know what I mean. It
reminds me of the streisand effect. You guys know what
(15:05):
that is, right, So the streisand effect is essentially saying
that once something is out there, once something is published online,
especially uh, it cannot be removed no matter how much
someone wants it to be removed. It's named after a
picture of Barbara streisand I believe that she asked to
(15:26):
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. Uh. It was her Malibu home as of
two thousand three. I believe that she was attempting to
remove that's right. And you could see the argument there
because it's like, hey, this is, you know, my personal
(15:49):
dwelling place. But this situation reminds me of something very funny.
I don't know if I mentioned it to you guys.
When the Wiki leaks stuff really started hitting, but there
were in helonal emails throughout, uh the intelligence industry, which
is the right word, uh, and throughout the defense industry
(16:09):
where people were literally telling government employees, hey, we know
this is out there, it's on the news, it's online. Uh,
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 stampeded away. We just didn't
have the legislation for this, and that's part of why
(16:33):
I rocked the world so fundamentally. And that's not even
we're not even talking about, right, but the emails, because
later Wiki Leaks released some twenty thousand pages of emails
from the Hillary Clinton campaign, uh as we'll call former
Secretary of State Clinton was running for US president, and
(16:53):
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. Yeah, it's true.
I mean the emails, which later became part of the
internet catchphrase. Uh, you know, but her emails explored and
expanded on multiple Clinton controversies that had already been um
(17:14):
out there in the public imagination. Um. And we 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 involved both her
and her husband, and the questionable relationship between the Clinton
(17:35):
Foundation and its donors. Clinton's kind of you know, close
knit relationships, shall we say, with some very powerful Wall
Street interests. Uh, that became problematic, especially considering that she
kind of, you know, was trying to cast herself as
sort of the people's candidate UM and her incredibly close
(17:58):
ties with a very wealthy and powerful campaign contributors. Uh,
this is just 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 here's presidential election.
And it also you know, I mean, I think a
lot of people looked at a Songe early on as
sort of this uh great equalizer UM, you know, and
(18:20):
trying to take powerful people to task. And that's all
well and good if if the 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
(18:43):
of his character really kind of uh complicated the relationship
with the public and Julian A. Sane I would say
two things here. Uh, I've recently listened to Glenn Greenwald
now of the Intercept, that's how he's best known currently,
but journalist who is discussing how Julian Osange really does
(19:05):
represent UM a largely hated figure on both the political
left and right within the United States, because 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. Uh, they very much
(19:26):
dislike him from that angle. And then from this, like
he said in 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 seen through these
leaks is that it is attempting at least feels that
it's an attempt to show that behind the curtain scene
(19:47):
of the powerful people in every single one of these
that we just that we've already kind of mentioned here. Um,
and I guess when you are doing that and showing
a peek behind the curtain of all powerful people, you're
gonna kind to piss everybody off. Yeah. Yeah, agreed, very
much so. And you know, I want to ask you
guys here, uh just an opinion. You know, uh, do
(20:12):
are are you all of the opinion that this, uh
that this did significantly a pack the election? Or was it?
I mean, how much do you think it swung the needle?
I would say it swung the needle. I mean my
opinion is that yes, for sure, it did because it
(20:32):
changed the conversation that was happening on the news cycle
almost like right up into the election, right up until
the day of the election. It really did change what
people were talking about. Oh no, I mean, I think
that's there's no question about it. It absolutely hijacked the conversation,
uh in a way that Clinton was just not able
(20:54):
to put back in that Pandora's box, you know. And
it really, uh completely took away her power to kind
of steer the narrative um, which you know, will say
what you will about what whichever side of policy politics
that you you fall on. UM. She definitely was trying
very hard to cast herself in this light of being
(21:17):
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 um, and that she really cared about
the everyman um for lack of a better term, And
this really kind of shattered a lot of that and
it made it at least whether it was true or
not at least the contents of the emails and the
(21:38):
nature of the whole private server situation, and whether or
not she completely flawned, 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 it at that point. Yeah,
it's the old The old saying holds true. If you
are defending yourself in any kind of political sphere, then
(22:02):
you are automatically losing. The fascist 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 rules of these terrible, terrible games. But there you
have it. Here's the takeaway. A single man, flesh and blood,
(22:23):
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.
When we last left Julian Assange, he had been removed
(22:44):
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 mindpossible death in the United States. So where
are we at now? We'll answer the question after a
(23:06):
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 Assane. Yes,
(23:27):
you'll recall how we said Assans was sent us to
fifty weeks in jail. Well, he was due to be
released in September nineteen um they specifically when his jail
term for breaching that bail uh ended and they just
didn't let him out. The Westminster Magistrate's Court noted that
(23:47):
there were substantial grounds for believing if free Assans would
make another run attempting to gain safe status um 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 it's the same way a
court assesses anyone's risk of flight. You know, they won't
(24:08):
grant you bail, or they'll make your bail excessively high
if they they or if if they even think that
you're gonna flee, let alone, if you've got an established
pattern of doing that, which Assange absolutely had. So. Julian
Assange remains in the bell Marsh Prison in the United Kingdom.
His partner, lawyer Stella Morris, who he has two children,
(24:29):
with recently said quote, the life of my partner Julian
Assang just severely at risk. He is on remand at
HMP Bell Marsh and COVID nineteen is spreading within its walls.
So this is absolutely a topical update here. Uh Morris
sees more than just a Sane Assange's personal health. Um.
Uh in in jeopardy here saying that quote Julian needs
(24:53):
to be released now for him, for our family, and
for the society we all want our children to grow
up in. Okay, Yeah, I mean, you know, it depends
on what what your take is on on that particular
vision of society that a Sane 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
(25:15):
powerful people to task. But he has absolutely has been
and remains a super divisive figure. Um. So let's talk
about a bigger picture issue here that we've addressed a
little bit in some of our COVID nineteen updates, The
risk of coronavirus and prisons. Well, yeah, it's it's certainly
a hairy situation for anyone who is being kept anywhere
(25:37):
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 um And in prisons across the world,
people are being infected with coronavirus because it only takes
one person to enter that closed system at some point
(25:58):
to then infect one other then exponentially grow that outbreak.
But in this particular prison HMP Bell Marsh where Juliana
Sane 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. And prisons just
(26:18):
in general are pretty rough places to be with individuals
who you know, 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 that kind
(26:39):
of fear of something like coronavirus or or or uprisings
or you know, maybe even riots, very violent riots occurring
within these prisons. 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 kind trees.
(27:00):
Prisoners have even successfully taken guards hostage, not even necessarily
to say, hey, we're throwing down the prison walls, uh,
let let my people go, but more to say, we
need to bring attention to the pandemic blood bath that
may occur when we are locked in here like animals
for whatever reason. So this, this prison angle has has
(27:25):
a lot of fairly plausible conspiratorial aspects to it, because
you know, we've seen the kind of manufactured concerns 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
(27:46):
he's been convicted of these crimes, he should get some
sort of special treatment because it's the humane thing to do.
By the way, for R and B fans, R Kelly
is uh looking for the same thing, the argument being
that he has diabetes and COVID is gonna blow through
prison systems. But in Assange's case, there's solid evidence that
(28:08):
his life maybe at risk more so than a Weinstein,
more so than an R. Kelly, because not as much
as a uh free Epstein, not as much as in Epstein, Right,
we should call that we should make the Epstein scale.
Uh if the you know, uh, fellow conspiracy realist, if
(28:30):
you have the time in the inclination, please feel free
to make an infographic of the Epstein scale the likelihood
of diet in prison. You know, I would I just
really quickly bed. 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,
(28:50):
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 release information about powerful people in
the actions they take. But then you think about somebody
like Jeffrey Epstein that very likely at least allegedly had
(29:12):
the worst kind of evidence against extremely powerful people, and
we saw what happened to him. You know, who knows
if it was, like, we can't prove to you if
it was self inflicted or not self inflicted in his case,
But he was only in prison for a short time,
That's all I would say. Right, Yeah, it's very much
(29:32):
worth pointing out that plenty of powerful people once this
guy dead, uh, even if they can't kill wiki leaks,
which is also on the wish list. Oh, we should
note that, um, you know, the Trump administration is currently
attempting to extradite assage to the US. However, remember we're
(29:57):
very quickly going into the no real good guys 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
(30:21):
few friends in Congress, you know what I mean, And
it's it's kind of misleading. That's why I appreciate the
point you made nol earlier about people liking a hero
or calling someone a hero until their principles, whatever they
may be, run counter to our own principles. It's the
idea of like one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist.
(30:43):
That 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 means just defying the ends,
you could probably say, well, they might have done some
bad things, but they were now ultimately supporting what I
(31:07):
think is a just cause. And oh and we should
point out in a in a no way baby but
kind of moment, let me tell you what really happened. Uh.
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 there's been in damage control here
(31:28):
in the States. Uncle Sam says Assange is not wanted
because he um caught the US doing some bad things
red handed, or because he damaged the soft power of
the reputation UH abroad, or because he embarrassed the US.
They say he's wanted because he illegally endangered the lives
(31:50):
of informants a k A. Spies or assets, dissidents a
k A also possibly spies or assets, but maybe you know,
maybe sincere dissidents as well as activist a k A.
Spier assets, but hey maybe maybe activists UM in multiple
countries including of course rock Iran and Afghanistan. So what
(32:14):
what what gives? What? What is he actually going to
be charged with or indicted for? Do we know? Yeah,
there 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
(32:35):
it in a recent conversation with Glenn Greenwald. She she's
a human rights attorney and she's representing a Sange, and
she explains it that the the the charges essentially state
that a Sange was communicating had communications of some sort
with Chelsea Manning at the time known as Bradley Manning,
and that a Sange discussed with Chelsea ways in which
(32:58):
she could access highly classified materials in a way that
would protect her identity. That's really what it's saying. That's
the whole thing. A Sange was 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
(33:20):
floating around and it started from this Department of Justice
press release that came out, um not that long ago,
and within this release it falsely stated, at least according
to Robinson, that Assange was being charged with quote hacking,
so in some way using you know, a computer or
(33:40):
a system to access classified government materials and then get
those four Chelsea or with Chelsea Manning, because we 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. Um so um. Just the last
(34:01):
thing here is that, according to Jennifer Robinson, within that indictment,
there is no allegation that Assane attempted to hack the U.
S Government UH 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, uh,
(34:23):
just to put it out there in conclusion. Um. The
the charges are that he had a discussion with Chelsea
Manning about how to hide her identity while accessing secret documents. Okay,
and then once once that kind of stuff proceeds, if
it does indeed proceed, UH, then will see those kind
(34:45):
of charges become increasingly specific as prosecutors explore, uh explore
their options. So this naturally leads us to the next
part of the update, which is this what's on the horizon,
will explore that after a word from our sponsors, we've returned.
(35:15):
So just a few days ago as we record this
peak behind the curtain interest of transparency. It is May sixth, Wednesday,
a lovely day outside in Atlanta, as far as I
can tell, Yes, I love it. I was writing on
the porch. I wish I could record out there. Uh.
Just a few days ago, Julian Ossange received word that
(35:40):
he will have to wait until at least September of
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, the editor in chief of
Wiki leaks. Earlier, they said a video post stod on
social media that it's unacceptable and confirmed that Assange likely
(36:05):
asked 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 embassy on his
what was that on his charge of fifty weeks for
jumping bail. Yeah, that he was supposed to be let out.
It's what did you say, September last year? Yes, yeah,
(36:28):
that's correct. Uh. And additionally the editor there at Wiki
leaks said he was not able to set a Sange,
that is, 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
(36:50):
that at least in his case, the health concerns are real. Uh.
You know, reporters said he was deteriorating mentally already when
he was in the Ecuadorian embassy. So the fate of
a Sange 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
(37:11):
the public in multiple countries uh to hold politicians accountable
and well attempt to do so. Anyway. Imagine a world
where any disclosure, even if it's incredibly vital to the
public interest, becomes a crime. And that's like dystopian kind
of stuff right there. Whistleblower protections, which have historically been
(37:31):
better on paper than in actual practice, have truly eroded
in the time since uh Asange was kind of at
his peak. Consider that other countries like China and Russia
have already started intimidating civilians for quote rumormongering end quote
as we've discussed in the COVID nineteen episodes. Uh, the
(37:52):
scientists that you know reported the early signs of that
virus was accused of that very thing and essentially black
bald and treated like a criminal. Um And that was
a big part of what we can now call some
form of cover up. Yeah. Yeah, And Russian doctors keep
falling out of windows. Uh. One fell out of a
(38:13):
window after he made a video update whereas 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 where he said that was all crazy.
He denied any of those claims, Everything was fine, and
(38:36):
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. M M. This is very true and and
you can see that depending on the outcome of Julian
Osange's situation, this could have a prem impact on the
(39:01):
future of potential whistle blowers like you were saying, noal
and it has a lot to do with the fact
that if you decide to leak information somewhere and you
could be hunted down essentially by the government that you
were blowing the whistle on. I mean it would it
would really set a precedent for that. And the big
(39:23):
problem here it expands from the individual whistle blower to
the outlets, the major news outlets that cover stories about
leaked information. If if you were recalled during the Iraq
warlogs saga of as well as the diplomatic cables, the
DNC emails, these were major releases done in conjunction with
(39:48):
with newspapers. It wasn't just wiki leaks putting out information
in the with the Iraq warlogs that that was The Guardian,
that was the New York Times, I think to Spiegel
released part of that information. They all kind of segmented
it out. It was all, you know, major news outlets
releasing leaked material via wiki leaks. And this is something
(40:11):
we have to remember. Major news outlets, let's say, like
The Guardian or the 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,
(40:36):
and we have two examples of this. You can go
to the Guardian 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 they're suggesting that you
(40:59):
use what's Happened signal and secure drop to make contact
with them and then to send them materials. And you know,
if the whistle blower individual falls because of Julian Sange's situation,
it would also make sense that perhaps the you know
journalism is the way we understand it, leaked important information
(41:22):
would become in some ways illegal. 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. Uh,
speaking of censorship, a completely different person who perhaps then
(41:46):
sees themselves as a whistleblower has run into what they
say as a conspiracy of censorship. Uh. David Ike just
had his YouTube channel deleted, will not be going back up.
I think around nine hundred thousand subscribers. His His Facebook
page was also deleted because the tech companies are instituting
(42:10):
a ban against anybody spreading uh 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 Assange. And then you have
people who are saying, you know, I might not agree
(42:31):
with this guy at all, but he is, uh, 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 with great speech comes great responsibility,
does it not? And uh, you know you have to
ask yourself about um the platform there. But but tech
(42:54):
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 um, these information conflicts rising to the
four and this is in no way an endorsement of
David Ike assuredly, yes, Um, I just wanted to bring
(43:18):
this up. 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
(43:38):
of you older conspiracy realists 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 YouTube algorithm and their content being suppressed essentially
(44:02):
because they were talking about political issues, conspiratorial issues, um,
and they ended up having to shutter their channel and
they've moved on. So if 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 might
be a fun match up mash up in the podcast
(44:24):
world now instead of on video, just to talk about
what happened to our YouTube channels. I would be interested
in that for sure, what do you think? Absolutely? Yeah, no,
I mean always down for a good collab with like
minded folks. And this leads us to one more potential development.
So we are at a we are at a branch
(44:46):
were possible forks in the road, and as Yogi bear
up the old announcer famously said, when you come to
a fork in the road, take it. Sorry than that
jokes for you, dad. But but this, um, we do
see some very important, mutually exclusive things on the horizon.
(45:07):
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 big part of the problem
would have solved itself. However, we have to remember, uh,
(45:30):
you know, um, like Ja Gavera famously said, and his
last words, shoot fool, you're only killing a man. Uh,
Wiki leaks wouldn't die if Assange did, it would continue.
It's not a perfect system, and there are allegations, as
I believe one of us mentioned earlier, that it has
a shifting agenda of its own, you know, including pretty
(45:51):
serious allegations that have partnered with Russia. To wage some
sort of asymmetrical information warfare against the US. So one
possible occurrence is that it dies in prison. End of story.
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 whistle blowers from coming forward. But
(46:12):
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 and how it all went down, they want to
stick it to the man essentially and continue in that
legacy outside of wiki leaks. M hm. And now we
(46:37):
have to ask ourselves, what about the precedence. If he
goes to trial, it's going to be even more crucial,
you know what I mean? Then, I mean here, let's
be a little bit idyllic, at least from his perspective.
What if Assange 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
(47:02):
if he's able to escape and live on the run,
you know, like that Beatles? Is it Beatles or is
just Paul McCartney banned on the run. Yeah, so what
if he pulls that just for the rest of his life?
Uh San John the run. There we go. Yeah, we'll
(47:24):
figure out who Sailor Sam is in that. In that regard,
I guess it's uncle Sam. But here's the question. What
if what if a sange goes to a U S Court,
gets extra diet, 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. Yeah, he would end up going to
(47:47):
jail again, right, And I could I could see a
scenario like that, Ben, where he does uh 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. Yeah. Well, you know, I think one
(48:08):
thing we can all agree on, Fellas, is that uh
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 entire catalog of Wings is
(48:29):
terribly prescient to the career and the controversy that is
Julian Assange. I've got I've got to look out the lyrics.
This goes deep. We need to get Paul McCartney on
the phone. Who who can call Paul McCartney, Matt Noel,
can you do it? You know it's funny you should
say that. I'm actually working on a podcast with Paul
McCartney's guitarists. So may well have an end to to
(48:50):
Macca nice perfect They call him Macca. They call him
Macca like the guitarist calls in Mecca. That's what that's
a big big Paul fans call. I'm like muck Heartney Macca. Okay,
it's like a pet name or like McDonald's slang for
in Australiaca. So so that's where we are now, and
(49:15):
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 in
flanders Field went on a little longer than it needed to. Uh,
but but you get the picture. We want to know
two things from you. First, what do you think should
happen to Julian Assange and others like him or are
(49:38):
those who come after him? Secondly, what do you think
will happen to this notorious whistleblowing mastermind? Um, 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. Yes you can. And just one
last question I want to pose to you, what do
(49:59):
you think the next big leak will be about? Because
there will be another big leak. I'm wings all right,
Well we've got a nomination from this side. Let us
know what you think. Uh. Like Ben said, you could
find us usually at Conspiracy Stuff, sometimes at Conspiracy Stuff show.
(50:19):
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 about the shows, let's discuss,
you know, some of the minutia. Let's talk about future episodes. Uh,
let's hang out there together on Facebook if you're into
that kind of thing. If you're not, you can always
(50:40):
give us a call. 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 uh,
it'll go to us. All three of us have access
to it, though Matt is still kind of the gate keeper. Uh.
I think Ben is more than key Master. But but
(51:02):
Matt as mad as the gate keeper. Wait, does that
mean we have to copulate God? I forget how it winding,
Ghostbusters whatever, whatever, whatever you need we need Uh. So Uh,
you know, I do wonder which Ghostbusters we would be.
That's funny. I was I got some spoilers about dan
(51:22):
Ackroyd possibly in the future, but we'll we'll catch up
on that uh down the road. Yes, as as Noel said, uh,
give us a call. Uh, Matt is our Matt is
our phone guru. But we do all have access. We
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
(51:46):
being shared on air, because we don't want to compromise you,
or if you're cool with us, you know, intentionally or
unintentionally calling you back. Yes, yes, if you're cool with
us accidentally butt dialing you, uh, full steam ahead. And
if you hate all of that stuff, uh, for one
reason or another, we totally get it. And we as
(52:07):
always have a backup plan. You can email us directly.
We are conspiracy at iHeart radio dot com. Stuff they
(52:33):
don't want you to know is a production of I
heart Radio. For more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit
the i heart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
listen to your favorite shows.
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 I Heart Brading. Hello, welcome back to the show.
(00:25):
My name is Matt, my name is Nol. They called
me Ben. We are joined as always with our super
producer Paul Mission Controlled Decond. 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
(00:46):
figure who once upon a time dominated global news. 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 and the agent of chaos.
And to still others, many people, he's just dangerous. His
(01:09):
name is Julian Assange. Our last update that we did
on this show on Julian Assange was almost exactly a
year ago today. It was May ten, nineteen, and today's
May six. As we're recording this, so you know, we're
not going to spend too much time in the background
because previously we have covered basically Julian osangees earlier situations.
(01:33):
If you really 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 in the very very real, big picture issues
that his current situation is revealing. Do you guys think
what makes people think super villain is his like stark
white hair, you know, and it seems like a really
(01:53):
good um feature for a for a like a Superman
villain of some kind. 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. I mean, that's the that's
the issue. Uh. You know, we're recording shows while we're
(02:15):
several weeks into quarantine. But this guy, this picture that
I have in the background, Uh, he's he's a quarantined master.
You know, he's been on lockdown for nearly seven years.
So when they're pulling him out, Uh, he's got the
he's grown a beard that is as white as his
naturally white hair. And uh, I think I could agree
with you know, for especially for people who aren't reading
(02:38):
the specifics of what he does. If you just see
a headline in the picture of the guy and you
like Bond films, uh, you might be tempted to say, Yeah,
that guy looks like a super villain. A lot of
it would go into dress too, Like if he wore
a turtleneck more often. I think that would up the
Bond quotition. But maybe I'm thinking of the earlier Bond
movies maybe had like a bionic hand or some thing,
(03:00):
and like a cat that he would stroke with that
bionic hand or a weird gun. Is that is that,
inspector gadget? No, what is that from? Yeah? Dr Claw
he stroked the weird cat with the bionic arm. Yeah, okay, okay.
Then there's also blowfeld in uh in the James Bond movies,
who also had a cat, or at least at the
(03:20):
at the very least uh. Dr Claw had a metal gauntlet,
but since they called it a claw, I like to
think it was like a bionic hands situation. So those
are those are some speculations, right, but let's let's get
to the facts. So here are the facts. The gist
of Julian Osange. You know, Julian Osange was born in
(03:40):
Australia in nineteen seventy one July three, specifically for a
full look at his biography and his early years his ascendants,
if you will please check out our previous episodes. Well
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 of his career path.
(04:04):
So today, Assan just probably best known for his activism,
which inspired him to create the website Wiki Leagues in
two thousand six. Um. I think we're all pretty familiar
with Wiki leagues, but let's think of it as kind
of a one stop shop for would be whistleblowers and
leakers of classified documents and footage from around the world. Uh.
(04:27):
In theory, sort of a repository for all the stuff
they don't want you to know, um, regardless of who
the they might specifically be. And Wiki Leagues gained international
attention in April when the organization released footage showing members
of the U. S Military fatally shooting eighteen civilians, including journalists,
(04:49):
from a helicopter in Iraq. Yeah, that was sort of
the the leak heard round the world. You know what
I mean, man, 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, um,
(05:11):
especially being that it was not something that was ever
meant to to get to us as you know, the
American public or the world public. Right. Yeah, And uh,
on a personal note, I missed the fish Bowl. Everyone listening,
I if you checked out our YouTube videos, maybe we
talked about it occasionally, but that was just so cool.
(05:31):
Other than being nearly impossible to film in it was
it was pretty cool. Uh, long story short on that
when it was it used to be a single person's
office and then uh we moved in and there were
like seven of us at one point six, six or seven,
and or at least six. Paul would know best. Paul
would know best. Oh yeah, that's right, Paul. Paul was
(05:53):
fish bowler as well, and this footage rocked not just
the fish Bowl but the world. And at this point
want to 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 when he released the footage,
(06:16):
A slade was detained in the United Kingdom because Sweden
had issued an international arrest for over allegations that he
had sexually assaulted two women during his time in the
Scandinavian country. Yeah. Specifically, the allegations UH concerned the idea
that he had raped one woman and then molested and
(06:36):
coerced another, all during August ten when he was in
Stockholm to give a lecture, and authorities UM were very
motivated to question him about these allegations. Assange maintained and
continues to maintain to this day, that both encounters were consensual,
and this triggered an extensive court battle. Eventually, he ended
(06:58):
up UM seeking US asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London,
UH in order to avoid possible extradition to either Sweden
or ultimately the US, where his actions with Wiki Leaks
led him to believe he would not receive a fair shake,
much like Chelsea Manning who partnered with Wiki Leaks to
(07:20):
leak that earlier footage that we spoke about. And as
we know, Chelsea Manning was UH significantly demonized and the
brunt of some very very serious consequences. Yeah, Yeah, part
of Chelsea Manning's case. That goes into the fact that
(07:41):
Chelsea was a member of the U. S. Army. So
there there's some heavier consequences. But still you're right the
writings on the wall. Uh, julian As Solinge very rightly
thought that he would not get a fair trial, and
so it was that he spent He tried to get
to Ecuador proper, but he ended up in seven years
(08:01):
almost hold up in the embassy. And there were a
lot of media reports about him. You can see some interviews. Uh.
They they depicted him in ways that sometimes sounded like
propaganda or character witness stuff. Now, now, to be fair,
we have not ourselves spoken uh with Mr Sange, but
(08:22):
he does have a reputation of being a bit shall
we say, cantankerous, Like he'll walk out of an interview
if he feels it's unfair. Uh. He his bedside manner.
Some journalists find it lacking. But you'll see reports of
him like being a bad HouseGuest, basically, like he wasn't
cleaning up after his cat and that became How surreal
(08:43):
is that that became an issue in the embassy. Uh.
He also had two children during this time. He was
finally arrested by British police on April eleven, right after
the Ecuadorian president, Lennon Moreno announced v you Twitter again
that the country had withdrawn his asylum status along the
(09:06):
way Sweden withdrew their earlier allegations. But after he was
dragged out of the embassy and that picture that you
guys can see behind me, which is contrasted with what
I think that's Game of Thrones? Which character is that
from Game of Thrones? I'm Master Lewin. Yeah, that's a
(09:27):
good call, I think so, Yeah, I think you're right. Um. So,
ultimately the UK court sentenced him to fifty weeks in
jail on May one, not for leaking documents, just for
jumping bail, for breaching bail agreements. And then uh, that's
when Swedish prosecutors reopened their investigation into the allegations of
(09:48):
sexual misconduct and assault. Yeah, and you know wiki leagues
over the years that it is been operating, both while
Julian Ossaunders 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. Um, actively publishing releases for a while. UM.
(10:14):
There were a 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 the Iraq War tape, that specific
video that was released. UH. It was a part of
a larger Iraq war release that was called the Iraq
(10:35):
War Logs. It was also called i think the Baghdad
War Diaries something to that effect. UM. So that that
tape was released in April of then the full Iraq
War Logs were released in October of and this was
a trove of almost four hundred thousand classified reports that,
(10:58):
according to Wiki Leaks and other people who have gone
through these documents, quote, document the war and occupation in
Iraq from the first of January two thousand four to
the thirty one of December two thousand nine. And this
is the thing we were talking about that UM, the
massive event. It was everyone talking about this. Multiple countries
(11:20):
and institutions weighed in 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. We're gonna be scrutinized
(11:43):
in the future. Um. It really was a big deal. Yeah,
it's massive precedent, you know. Um. And 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,
(12:08):
so point A to point B. But there there's so
many things that get lost in the shuffle. And that's
that's just one of the controversies. Right. We also know
that later wiki leaks, uh In leaked more than two
hundred and fifty thousand classified diplomatic cables. A cable here
(12:30):
in this sense is not like an HDMI cable or something.
It's and it's not like Comcast. It's uh it's a message, right,
It's a secret message that different embassies send to one another. UH.
And these these privileged communications might be intelligence on the
ground from an intelligence agency. They might be something as
(12:53):
small as like the uh ambassador to Syria said that
he is 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 it's very frank, behind the scenes
kind of looks at stuff. There are things the governments
(13:14):
of the world 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 fundamentally rocked
the world of diplomacy, and the repercussions are still reverberating today.
This did some irreparable damage to international relations. Yeah, I
(13:36):
mean if they think, 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 threat
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,
uh scale version of that, because as you said, Ben,
(13:59):
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, um,
any kind of conflict necessarily directly or any kind of
intelligence that would, you know, be just earth shattering. It's
just a bad look. I mean, diplomacy in and of
itself is about good bedside manner and keeping those relationships
(14:22):
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 would worked very hard
to uh nurse and maintain. And by the way, if
you want to see either of these two subjects that
we just talked about, the Iraq war logs or the
diplomatic cables, you can find all of that. It's all
(14:43):
searchable on the wiki leaks dot org website. Just if
you're curious or you know you're feeling a little dangerous,
you can go check those out. Yeah, yeah, we should
say one benefit of talking about these past leaks is
that they are all available, know what I mean. It
reminds me of the streisand effect. You guys know what
(15:05):
that is, right, So the streisand effect is essentially saying
that once something is out there, once something is published online,
especially uh, it cannot be removed no matter how much
someone wants it to be removed. It's named after a
picture of Barbara streisand I believe that she asked to
(15:26):
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. Uh. It was her Malibu home as of
two thousand three. I believe that she was attempting to
remove that's right. And you could see the argument there
because it's like, hey, this is, you know, my personal
(15:49):
dwelling place. But this situation reminds me of something very funny.
I don't know if I mentioned it to you guys.
When the Wiki leaks stuff really started hitting, but there
were in helonal emails throughout, uh the intelligence industry, which
is the right word, uh, and throughout the defense industry
(16:09):
where people were literally telling government employees, hey, we know
this is out there, it's on the news, it's online. Uh,
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 stampeded away. We just didn't
have the legislation for this, and that's part of why
(16:33):
I rocked the world so fundamentally. And that's not even
we're not even talking about, right, but the emails, because
later Wiki Leaks released some twenty thousand pages of emails
from the Hillary Clinton campaign, uh as we'll call former
Secretary of State Clinton was running for US president, and
(16:53):
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. Yeah, it's true.
I mean the emails, which later became part of the
internet catchphrase. Uh, you know, but her emails explored and
expanded on multiple Clinton controversies that had already been um
(17:14):
out there in the public imagination. Um. And we 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 involved both her
and her husband, and the questionable relationship between the Clinton
(17:35):
Foundation and its donors. Clinton's kind of you know, close
knit relationships, shall we say, with some very powerful Wall
Street interests. Uh, that became problematic, especially considering that she
kind of, you know, was trying to cast herself as
sort of the people's candidate UM and her incredibly close
(17:58):
ties with a very wealthy and powerful campaign contributors. Uh,
this is just 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 here's presidential election.
And it also you know, I mean, I think a
lot of people looked at a Songe early on as
sort of this uh great equalizer UM, you know, and
(18:20):
trying to take powerful people to task. And that's all
well and good if if the 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
(18:43):
of his character really kind of uh complicated the relationship
with the public and Julian A. Sane I would say
two things here. Uh, I've recently listened to Glenn Greenwald
now of the Intercept, that's how he's best known currently,
but journalist who is discussing how Julian Osange really does
(19:05):
represent UM a largely hated figure on both the political
left and right within the United States, because 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. Uh, they very much
(19:26):
dislike him from that angle. And then from this, like
he said in 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 seen through these
leaks is that it is attempting at least feels that
it's an attempt to show that behind the curtain scene
(19:47):
of the powerful people in every single one of these
that we just that we've already kind of mentioned here. Um,
and I guess when you are doing that and showing
a peek behind the curtain of all powerful people, you're
gonna kind to piss everybody off. Yeah. Yeah, agreed, very
much so. And you know, I want to ask you
guys here, uh just an opinion. You know, uh, do
(20:12):
are are you all of the opinion that this, uh
that this did significantly a pack the election? Or was it?
I mean, how much do you think it swung the needle?
I would say it swung the needle. I mean my
opinion is that yes, for sure, it did because it
(20:32):
changed the conversation that was happening on the news cycle
almost like right up into the election, right up until
the day of the election. It really did change what
people were talking about. Oh no, I mean, I think
that's there's no question about it. It absolutely hijacked the conversation,
uh in a way that Clinton was just not able
(20:54):
to put back in that Pandora's box, you know. And
it really, uh completely took away her power to kind
of steer the narrative um, which you know, will say
what you will about what whichever side of policy politics
that you you fall on. UM. She definitely was trying
very hard to cast herself in this light of being
(21:17):
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 um, and that she really cared about
the everyman um for lack of a better term, And
this really kind of shattered a lot of that and
it made it at least whether it was true or
not at least the contents of the emails and the
(21:38):
nature of the whole private server situation, and whether or
not she completely flawned, 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 it at that point. Yeah,
it's the old The old saying holds true. If you
are defending yourself in any kind of political sphere, then
(22:02):
you are automatically losing. The fascist 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 rules of these terrible, terrible games. But there you
have it. Here's the takeaway. A single man, flesh and blood,
(22:23):
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.
When we last left Julian Assange, he had been removed
(22:44):
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 mindpossible death in the United States. So where
are we at now? We'll answer the question after a
(23:06):
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 Assane. Yes,
(23:27):
you'll recall how we said Assans was sent us to
fifty weeks in jail. Well, he was due to be
released in September nineteen um they specifically when his jail
term for breaching that bail uh ended and they just
didn't let him out. The Westminster Magistrate's Court noted that
(23:47):
there were substantial grounds for believing if free Assans would
make another run attempting to gain safe status um 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 it's the same way a
court assesses anyone's risk of flight. You know, they won't
(24:08):
grant you bail, or they'll make your bail excessively high
if they they or if if they even think that
you're gonna flee, let alone, if you've got an established
pattern of doing that, which Assange absolutely had. So. Julian
Assange remains in the bell Marsh Prison in the United Kingdom.
His partner, lawyer Stella Morris, who he has two children,
(24:29):
with recently said quote, the life of my partner Julian
Assang just severely at risk. He is on remand at
HMP Bell Marsh and COVID nineteen is spreading within its walls.
So this is absolutely a topical update here. Uh Morris
sees more than just a Sane Assange's personal health. Um.
Uh in in jeopardy here saying that quote Julian needs
(24:53):
to be released now for him, for our family, and
for the society we all want our children to grow
up in. Okay, Yeah, I mean, you know, it depends
on what what your take is on on that particular
vision of society that a Sane 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
(25:15):
powerful people to task. But he has absolutely has been
and remains a super divisive figure. Um. So let's talk
about a bigger picture issue here that we've addressed a
little bit in some of our COVID nineteen updates, The
risk of coronavirus and prisons. Well, yeah, it's it's certainly
a hairy situation for anyone who is being kept anywhere
(25:37):
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 um And in prisons across the world,
people are being infected with coronavirus because it only takes
one person to enter that closed system at some point
(25:58):
to then infect one other then exponentially grow that outbreak.
But in this particular prison HMP Bell Marsh where Juliana
Sane 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. And prisons just
(26:18):
in general are pretty rough places to be with individuals
who you know, 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 that kind
(26:39):
of fear of something like coronavirus or or or uprisings
or you know, maybe even riots, very violent riots occurring
within these prisons. 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 kind trees.
(27:00):
Prisoners have even successfully taken guards hostage, not even necessarily
to say, hey, we're throwing down the prison walls, uh,
let let my people go, but more to say, we
need to bring attention to the pandemic blood bath that
may occur when we are locked in here like animals
for whatever reason. So this, this prison angle has has
(27:25):
a lot of fairly plausible conspiratorial aspects to it, because
you know, we've seen the kind of manufactured concerns 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
(27:46):
he's been convicted of these crimes, he should get some
sort of special treatment because it's the humane thing to do.
By the way, for R and B fans, R Kelly
is uh looking for the same thing, the argument being
that he has diabetes and COVID is gonna blow through
prison systems. But in Assange's case, there's solid evidence that
(28:08):
his life maybe at risk more so than a Weinstein,
more so than an R. Kelly, because not as much
as a uh free Epstein, not as much as in Epstein, Right,
we should call that we should make the Epstein scale.
Uh if the you know, uh, fellow conspiracy realist, if
(28:30):
you have the time in the inclination, please feel free
to make an infographic of the Epstein scale the likelihood
of diet in prison. You know, I would I just
really quickly bed. 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,
(28:50):
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 release information about powerful people in
the actions they take. But then you think about somebody
like Jeffrey Epstein that very likely at least allegedly had
(29:12):
the worst kind of evidence against extremely powerful people, and
we saw what happened to him. You know, who knows
if it was, like, we can't prove to you if
it was self inflicted or not self inflicted in his case,
But he was only in prison for a short time,
That's all I would say. Right, Yeah, it's very much
(29:32):
worth pointing out that plenty of powerful people once this
guy dead, uh, even if they can't kill wiki leaks,
which is also on the wish list. Oh, we should
note that, um, you know, the Trump administration is currently
attempting to extradite assage to the US. However, remember we're
(29:57):
very quickly going into the no real good guys 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
(30:21):
few friends in Congress, you know what I mean, And
it's it's kind of misleading. That's why I appreciate the
point you made nol earlier about people liking a hero
or calling someone a hero until their principles, whatever they
may be, run counter to our own principles. It's the
idea of like one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist.
(30:43):
That 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 means just defying the ends,
you could probably say, well, they might have done some
bad things, but they were now ultimately supporting what I
(31:07):
think is a just cause. And oh and we should
point out in a in a no way baby but
kind of moment, let me tell you what really happened. Uh.
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 there's been in damage control here
(31:28):
in the States. Uncle Sam says Assange is not wanted
because he um caught the US doing some bad things
red handed, or because he damaged the soft power of
the reputation UH abroad, or because he embarrassed the US.
They say he's wanted because he illegally endangered the lives
(31:50):
of informants a k A. Spies or assets, dissidents a
k A also possibly spies or assets, but maybe you know,
maybe sincere dissidents as well as activist a k A.
Spier assets, but hey maybe maybe activists UM in multiple
countries including of course rock Iran and Afghanistan. So what
(32:14):
what what gives? What? What is he actually going to
be charged with or indicted for? Do we know? Yeah,
there 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
(32:35):
it in a recent conversation with Glenn Greenwald. She she's
a human rights attorney and she's representing a Sange, and
she explains it that the the the charges essentially state
that a Sange was communicating had communications of some sort
with Chelsea Manning at the time known as Bradley Manning,
and that a Sange discussed with Chelsea ways in which
(32:58):
she could access highly classified materials in a way that
would protect her identity. That's really what it's saying. That's
the whole thing. A Sange was 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
(33:20):
floating around and it started from this Department of Justice
press release that came out, um not that long ago,
and within this release it falsely stated, at least according
to Robinson, that Assange was being charged with quote hacking,
so in some way using you know, a computer or
(33:40):
a system to access classified government materials and then get
those four Chelsea or with Chelsea Manning, because we 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. Um so um. Just the last
(34:01):
thing here is that, according to Jennifer Robinson, within that indictment,
there is no allegation that Assane attempted to hack the U.
S Government UH 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, uh,
(34:23):
just to put it out there in conclusion. Um. The
the charges are that he had a discussion with Chelsea
Manning about how to hide her identity while accessing secret documents. Okay,
and then once once that kind of stuff proceeds, if
it does indeed proceed, UH, then will see those kind
(34:45):
of charges become increasingly specific as prosecutors explore, uh explore
their options. So this naturally leads us to the next
part of the update, which is this what's on the horizon,
will explore that after a word from our sponsors, we've returned.
(35:15):
So just a few days ago as we record this
peak behind the curtain interest of transparency. It is May sixth, Wednesday,
a lovely day outside in Atlanta, as far as I
can tell, Yes, I love it. I was writing on
the porch. I wish I could record out there. Uh.
Just a few days ago, Julian Ossange received word that
(35:40):
he will have to wait until at least September of
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, the editor in chief of
Wiki leaks. Earlier, they said a video post stod on
social media that it's unacceptable and confirmed that Assange likely
(36:05):
asked 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 embassy on his
what was that on his charge of fifty weeks for
jumping bail. Yeah, that he was supposed to be let out.
It's what did you say, September last year? Yes, yeah,
(36:28):
that's correct. Uh. And additionally the editor there at Wiki
leaks said he was not able to set a Sange,
that is, 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
(36:50):
that at least in his case, the health concerns are real. Uh.
You know, reporters said he was deteriorating mentally already when
he was in the Ecuadorian embassy. So the fate of
a Sange 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
(37:11):
the public in multiple countries uh to hold politicians accountable
and well attempt to do so. Anyway. Imagine a world
where any disclosure, even if it's incredibly vital to the
public interest, becomes a crime. And that's like dystopian kind
of stuff right there. Whistleblower protections, which have historically been
(37:31):
better on paper than in actual practice, have truly eroded
in the time since uh Asange was kind of at
his peak. Consider that other countries like China and Russia
have already started intimidating civilians for quote rumormongering end quote
as we've discussed in the COVID nineteen episodes. Uh, the
(37:52):
scientists that you know reported the early signs of that
virus was accused of that very thing and essentially black
bald and treated like a criminal. Um And that was
a big part of what we can now call some
form of cover up. Yeah. Yeah, And Russian doctors keep
falling out of windows. Uh. One fell out of a
(38:13):
window after he made a video update whereas 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 where he said that was all crazy.
He denied any of those claims, Everything was fine, and
(38:36):
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. M M. This is very true and and
you can see that depending on the outcome of Julian
Osange's situation, this could have a prem impact on the
(39:01):
future of potential whistle blowers like you were saying, noal
and it has a lot to do with the fact
that if you decide to leak information somewhere and you
could be hunted down essentially by the government that you
were blowing the whistle on. I mean it would it
would really set a precedent for that. And the big
(39:23):
problem here it expands from the individual whistle blower to
the outlets, the major news outlets that cover stories about
leaked information. If if you were recalled during the Iraq
warlogs saga of as well as the diplomatic cables, the
DNC emails, these were major releases done in conjunction with
(39:48):
with newspapers. It wasn't just wiki leaks putting out information
in the with the Iraq warlogs that that was The Guardian,
that was the New York Times, I think to Spiegel
released part of that information. They all kind of segmented
it out. It was all, you know, major news outlets
releasing leaked material via wiki leaks. And this is something
(40:11):
we have to remember. Major news outlets, let's say, like
The Guardian or the 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,
(40:36):
and we have two examples of this. You can go
to the Guardian 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 they're suggesting that you
(40:59):
use what's Happened signal and secure drop to make contact
with them and then to send them materials. And you know,
if the whistle blower individual falls because of Julian Sange's situation,
it would also make sense that perhaps the you know
journalism is the way we understand it, leaked important information
(41:22):
would become in some ways illegal. 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. Uh,
speaking of censorship, a completely different person who perhaps then
(41:46):
sees themselves as a whistleblower has run into what they
say as a conspiracy of censorship. Uh. David Ike just
had his YouTube channel deleted, will not be going back up.
I think around nine hundred thousand subscribers. His His Facebook
page was also deleted because the tech companies are instituting
(42:10):
a ban against anybody spreading uh 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 Assange. And then you have
people who are saying, you know, I might not agree
(42:31):
with this guy at all, but he is, uh, 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 with great speech comes great responsibility,
does it not? And uh, you know you have to
ask yourself about um the platform there. But but tech
(42:54):
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 um, these information conflicts rising to the
four and this is in no way an endorsement of
David Ike assuredly, yes, Um, I just wanted to bring
(43:18):
this up. 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
(43:38):
of you older conspiracy realists 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 YouTube algorithm and their content being suppressed essentially
(44:02):
because they were talking about political issues, conspiratorial issues, um,
and they ended up having to shutter their channel and
they've moved on. So if 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 might
be a fun match up mash up in the podcast
(44:24):
world now instead of on video, just to talk about
what happened to our YouTube channels. I would be interested
in that for sure, what do you think? Absolutely? Yeah, no,
I mean always down for a good collab with like
minded folks. And this leads us to one more potential development.
So we are at a we are at a branch
(44:46):
were possible forks in the road, and as Yogi bear
up the old announcer famously said, when you come to
a fork in the road, take it. Sorry than that
jokes for you, dad. But but this, um, we do
see some very important, mutually exclusive things on the horizon.
(45:07):
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 big part of the problem
would have solved itself. However, we have to remember, uh,
(45:30):
you know, um, like Ja Gavera famously said, and his
last words, shoot fool, you're only killing a man. Uh,
Wiki leaks wouldn't die if Assange did, it would continue.
It's not a perfect system, and there are allegations, as
I believe one of us mentioned earlier, that it has
a shifting agenda of its own, you know, including pretty
(45:51):
serious allegations that have partnered with Russia. To wage some
sort of asymmetrical information warfare against the US. So one
possible occurrence is that it dies in prison. End of story.
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 whistle blowers from coming forward. But
(46:12):
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 and how it all went down, they want to
stick it to the man essentially and continue in that
legacy outside of wiki leaks. M hm. And now we
(46:37):
have to ask ourselves, what about the precedence. If he
goes to trial, it's going to be even more crucial,
you know what I mean? Then, I mean here, let's
be a little bit idyllic, at least from his perspective.
What if Assange 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
(47:02):
if he's able to escape and live on the run,
you know, like that Beatles? Is it Beatles or is
just Paul McCartney banned on the run. Yeah, so what
if he pulls that just for the rest of his life?
Uh San John the run. There we go. Yeah, we'll
(47:24):
figure out who Sailor Sam is in that. In that regard,
I guess it's uncle Sam. But here's the question. What
if what if a sange goes to a U S Court,
gets extra diet, 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. Yeah, he would end up going to
(47:47):
jail again, right, And I could I could see a
scenario like that, Ben, where he does uh 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. Yeah. Well, you know, I think one
(48:08):
thing we can all agree on, Fellas, is that uh
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 entire catalog of Wings is
(48:29):
terribly prescient to the career and the controversy that is
Julian Assange. I've got I've got to look out the lyrics.
This goes deep. We need to get Paul McCartney on
the phone. Who who can call Paul McCartney, Matt Noel,
can you do it? You know it's funny you should
say that. I'm actually working on a podcast with Paul
McCartney's guitarists. So may well have an end to to
(48:50):
Macca nice perfect They call him Macca. They call him
Macca like the guitarist calls in Mecca. That's what that's
a big big Paul fans call. I'm like muck Heartney Macca. Okay,
it's like a pet name or like McDonald's slang for
in Australiaca. So so that's where we are now, and
(49:15):
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 in
flanders Field went on a little longer than it needed to. Uh,
but but you get the picture. We want to know
two things from you. First, what do you think should
happen to Julian Assange and others like him or are
(49:38):
those who come after him? Secondly, what do you think
will happen to this notorious whistleblowing mastermind? Um, 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. Yes you can. And just one
last question I want to pose to you, what do
(49:59):
you think the next big leak will be about? Because
there will be another big leak. I'm wings all right,
Well we've got a nomination from this side. Let us
know what you think. Uh. Like Ben said, you could
find us usually at Conspiracy Stuff, sometimes at Conspiracy Stuff show.
(50:19):
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 about the shows, let's discuss,
you know, some of the minutia. Let's talk about future episodes. Uh,
let's hang out there together on Facebook if you're into
that kind of thing. If you're not, you can always
(50:40):
give us a call. 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 uh,
it'll go to us. All three of us have access
to it, though Matt is still kind of the gate keeper. Uh.
I think Ben is more than key Master. But but
(51:02):
Matt as mad as the gate keeper. Wait, does that
mean we have to copulate God? I forget how it winding,
Ghostbusters whatever, whatever, whatever you need we need Uh. So Uh,
you know, I do wonder which Ghostbusters we would be.
That's funny. I was I got some spoilers about dan
(51:22):
Ackroyd possibly in the future, but we'll we'll catch up
on that uh down the road. Yes, as as Noel said, uh,
give us a call. Uh, Matt is our Matt is
our phone guru. But we do all have access. We
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
(51:46):
being shared on air, because we don't want to compromise you,
or if you're cool with us, you know, intentionally or
unintentionally calling you back. Yes, yes, if you're cool with
us accidentally butt dialing you, uh, full steam ahead. And
if you hate all of that stuff, uh, for one
reason or another, we totally get it. And we as
(52:07):
always have a backup plan. You can email us directly.
We are conspiracy at iHeart radio dot com. Stuff they
(52:33):
don't want you to know is a production of I
heart Radio. For more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit
the i heart radio 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
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.