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