Title: Duggan Extradition - John Kiriakou & Senator David Shoebridge
Show: Consortium News
Date: 2025-10-27
URL: https://youtu.be/dOzonepgGBk
Duration: 50:00

---

[06:16] come in to deal with that. Our laws have changed in relation to a number of issues that have come about because of new technology. And so we have things that are against the law now that were not criminal 20 years ago or 30 years ago. And one of the other basic rules about our criminal justice system is you can only be penalized under our law for things that were um criminalized at the time you did them. The parliament can pass criminal laws to make conduct

[06:47] illegal, but it should only operate from the time the law passes into the future. You don't retrospectively make things illegal in Australia because you're meant to be able to operate, you know, within the laws as we understand them. And you don't want you don't want parliaments I can assure you you don't want you know me and others making things retrospectively criminal criminalizing conduct you did in the past that wasn't criminal at the time. So two basic concepts under the extradition laws um we're only meant to be extraditing

[07:17] people when something is contrary to our law and contrary to the law of the country that's trying to extradite them. It has to be a crime the conduct needs to be criminal in both jurisdictions. And then there's this absolutely fundamental concept in our law that you don't make things retrospectively illegal. You don't make things illegal in the past if you know if they weren't at the time because people have a right to you know run their lives, organize their affairs in light of the laws as they stand at the time, not not what

[07:49] some future parliament might judge them. But you see what the parliament snuck through in amendments to the extradition act about a decade ago was they said, "Well, look, yep, sure." Um, if someone's going to be extradited, then it needs to be criminal conduct both in the country that's seeking the extradition and in Australia. Tick. Um, but we're not going to be so troubled about whether or not it was criminal at the time the the conduct happened in Australia. We're going to let that ride

[08:19] and we're going to allow the parliament to pass new laws, make things illegal now, which weren't illegal at the time the conduct was happened. And and provided those laws have been passed by the time the third country seeks the extradition, if it's illegal just at the time the paperwork is filed, and in Dan Dugen's case, it was the better part of a decade, you know, after the conduct. They said, "Provided it's illegal at the time that the paperwork is filed, then no worries. we'll send them off to America. And you know, not only is that

[08:49] contrary to the treaty that we signed on extradition, it's also contrary to that basic principle that Australia is not going to punish you for conduct that wasn't illegal at the time you did it according to our laws. Um, and yet all of this has been run rough shot over in the Dugen case. Um, and I would have hoped the attorney general would have taken a pretty hard view on this, either the former one or the current one, and said, "Well, actually, we're not going to be sending someone to face criminal prosecution in the United States for

[09:20] something that wasn't a crime under Australian law at the time they're alleged to have done it. That affronts our sense of justice." I tell you what, it affronts my sense of justice. Yeah, that's what's happening in the Dan Dugen case. >> Well, this is right. But I mean there's even this element in American law as well as as John Kiryaku will be able to confirm. But there has to be foreseeability that something is a crime. And that is something that that's there's a parallel there between the case of Dugen and

[09:51] Julian Assange. um because article 7 in um European Convention on Human Rights equated to more or less to the fifth amendment does specify that somebody has to know it's a crime before they think of conducting uh that behavior. The other thing of course is uh the first amendment and in the submissions of Kery Law who is defending uh Dan Dugen. They mentioned these

[10:21] motivational talks that he gave in China in the corporate environments you know inspiring teams to succeed all that kind of thing. If he went to America that could be considered a violation of his first amendment rights, free speech rights. But hang on a second. Dugen is exactly like Assange. He is now a foreign citizen who acted abroad and according to Justice Kavanaaugh's rule in the Supreme Court in 2020, June 2020,

[10:55] he articulated what he called longestablished laws that foreign nationals who acted abroad don't have rights to any constitutional protection. So, you know, Dugen is having a really hard time. There's no defense at the grand jury stage, only prosecutors. He's not allowed to argue the facts of the case in Australia. And then possibly over there, and why wouldn't that be a second deal breaker that he wouldn't have any constitutional rights cuz he's

[11:26] no longer a US citizen? Well, as you know, that question of um equality before the law was a key issue in the extradition of Julian Assange. His legal team said, "Well, if the US government um won't agree that a non- US citizen has access to the same constitutional rights as a US citizen in criminal law proceedings, well, then that was a very potential, you know, barrier to uh Julian being extradited

[11:59] from the UK to the US because it affronts that concept of equality before the law. >> Um, you know, those if those same concerns arise in Dan Dugen's case, well, then you'd hope that's a matter the courts will take into account in considering whether or not to permit an extradition in Australia because equality before the law, you think, is a pretty fundamental thing. We shouldn't be sending Australian citizens to any jurisdiction to face criminal prosecutions where they have only half the rights or a whole bunch of rights are missing um to allow them to defend

[12:32] themselves when you know a citizen of the United States would have a a far greater set of rights under criminal law. So, if our attorney general should never permit the extradition of an Australian citizen to the United States, if the United States says, "Well, actually, sure, you know, send them back to our country. Uh, we'll we'll whack them before the criminal courts. Um, and we won't afford them any constitutional protections. Um, you know, we won't afford them the same rights that US citizens have because we want to whack them in jail." I mean, that should that you would think should never happen. Um,

[13:05] but it doesn't seem that those pretty fundamental issues have ever really troubled the mind of either this or the former attorney general. And I find that quite problematic. Um, but but you know, ultimately it's for the courts to make these decisions based upon how they understand the law to be. Um, I can't, you know, I'm I'm not going to try and substitute my personal views for the views of the court, but these are some pretty fundamental issues. Will the courts

[13:36] permit somebody to be extradited um when the alleged conduct that they're said to have engaged in was not against the law at the time, against Australian law at the time they engaged in. I think that's a pretty fundamental issue. Will the court say that the Extradition Act as passed by the Commonwealth Parliament um is is a valid piece of legislation um if the act is contrary to the provisions of the treaty um because it's only through the treaty and the extra

[14:06] external affairs power that the Commonwealth has the power um to pass this act. And if the legislation is contrary to the treaty um well the courts are going to have to determine whether or not the legislation was valid in whole or in part to make that change. Um again, you know, it's for the courts to make these decisions on constitutional law, not for myself. But I think there is a separate political question here, which is should the attorney general, who ultimately is a politician and is meant to be representing Australian values, you

[14:37] know, you know, in light of but making political judgments separate to the legal system. Should the attorney general have ever signed u the paperwork to permit the extradition? You know, I think the more we look into the case, the more there are compelling reasons why that shouldn't have happened. Um, you know, and of course, one of the other one of the other issues in this is the United States is is saying that their criminal law applies to conduct committed anywhere on the planet.

[15:09] And you know, they did that in the Assange case as well. They said we can pass laws in relation to our national security that apply anywhere on the planet. Now there are some areas where where states accept that extra territoriality like you know there are occasions where you need to say well states can have their criminal laws extend beyond their borders because there's some conduct you you really want to capture and traditionally that's been

[15:39] um conduct like piracy. you know, piracy at the high seas doesn't happen in any any country's jurisdiction. If you're going to have bring have criminal proceedings to bring that to account, well, you need extra territoriality. Um, slavery, you know, slavery often happens um um uh through third countries or, you know, again, you know, people are transported on the high seas. You traditionally have extr territoriality to deal with that. But are we going to permit the United States to just say any part of their criminal law um wherever

[16:10] they choose can apply to anyone on the planet wherever they are? You know, I think there's got to be boundaries here and the Dugen case again is showing that our government should be standing up for some of those boundaries to protect Australian citizens from the, you know, imperial reach of the United States criminal law. >> Senator Schubbridge, what is going on here? Really, I have two questions really. How does this fit in or does it fit in to the continuous pressure the United States has been putting on Australia to make China an enemy when China is not an enemy of the of

[16:41] Australia? And why did the attorney general go along with this as you were just saying? >> Well, I mean, three questions really, aren't there? Why did we change the laws? You know, you know, there seemed to be no compelling reason to change the extradition laws to permit a Dugen extradition, right? So I'm I'm yet to to that happened before my time in federal parliament. I've looked into it. There's no compelling reason that was put forward to change the laws at the time. And I think that's a mystery that's still yet to be explained. Um why does

[17:13] our attorney general agree to US extradition requests and why do they often show so little resistance to US actions? Well, I think you know anyone who's observed Australia's international relations over the last five decades would say that we are incredibly plant to the United States. You know, many of our foreign policy settings aren't really set in CRA. They're they're rubber stamped in CRA, but they're set in Washington and we do what we're told. Um, and this appears to be, you know,

[17:44] very consistent with that pattern. It doesn't really matter whether it's Labor or the coalition. You know, they sign on to this Australia's place in the world is to sort of meekly, politely, and sometimes at incredible expense follow what the United States tells us to do. And you know, it's another brick in the wall that I think is being built um to make the case for Australia to have a genuinely independent foreign and defense policy and start making some of these decisions ourselves. But you know in the context of a lot of the rhetoric that's been coming out of Washington,

[18:16] it's been pared in Canberra, you know, the capital of Australia. And you hear it come from our security community, the defense, AIO, and all of our security agencies. You know, they are desperately trying to persuade the Australian public that we should join the United States if they choose to go to war with China. and you know, opening up Australia's real estate to new and expanded US military bases, make our armed forces interoperable with

[18:47] the United States so that we can just slot in as a little dependent unit of a larger US military deployment. Um, make our procurement almost entirely dependent on US military equipment. um which of course creates a substantial sovereignty risk if the United States ever chooses not to support our defense equipment in the future. You know, there are all these decisions being made, you know, and separate to that is this massive orcus mess which is tying us into having US and UK designed and

[19:18] largely built nuclear submarines over the next four decades at a cost a staggering cost from an Australian's perspective of like 375 billion Australian dollars. like it's all of these decisions are being made. Um and they all take us down the same path, increasing dependence on the United States, less sovereign decision making about our future being made in Australia. And I think it's an incredibly dangerous and reckless path that the current administration, a Labor

[19:51] Party, the previous administration, the coalition, um have been taking this on for decades now. I don't think there's a good answer to this question and it applies to a country like Germany as well where German leaders do things that absolutely hurt German interests but serve American interests. Why are Australian leaders doing this when it hurts Australia? Uh that's maybe an impossible question to answer. There's lots of theories. >> You see, you're asking some of your theories are >> you're you're asking questions that never never trouble their minds in CRA. This is like a an accepted starting

[20:23] point of the conversation. It's an a priority assumption that our security and our future is is intertwined and imshed with the United States. And you're not allowed to question that in CRA. I would have thought you would know this by now, Joe. You're not allowed to question that a prior assumption because once you start doing that, once you start asking, well, hang on, why are we doing this? You know, how is this making Australia safe? you know, we live in one of the most geopolitically benign parts

[20:53] of the planet, right? There's the only place really safer than Australia um geopolitically is New Zealand, and that's only because it's the other side of Australia, right? Um apart from that, Australia is in pretty much the most benign part of the planet. We're surrounded by oceans. We have, you know, a um not just an ocean and a sea, but a massive island archipelago separating us from um Eurasia. Um the Pacific Ocean on one side, the Indian Ocean on the other side, Antarctica to the south of us. You

[21:25] know, the the only country, you know, place to be a kind of threat to us is kind of New Zealand or Papa New Guinea, right? And the we we live in an incredibly benign part of the world, right? So, so in order for us to be at risk from some conflict with China, the only way we can be at risk in a military conflict with China is if we invite that conflict to Australia, right? We we actually say, "Hang on, here we are. Don't forget about us. Make us a target." You know, um, actively make us

[21:56] one of your enemies. And the only way I know to do that would be for us to position a whole lot of United States military bases on our shore which might be used by the United States if they wanted to have a war with China. Like that would be the only way of putting us at risk. And that's exactly what we are doing. These bases aren't to protect us. These bases are to protect the United States interests. But the bases themselves, our our dependence on the United States, our unthinking support

[22:27] for United States military deployments in the region, they don't make us safe. They are the only potential geopolitical risk. They create the risk. They don't create safety. They create risk. And you know, but even saying that, you know, or thinking that, um, it's like the third rail of Australian politics. You're not allowed to say it. You're not allowed to think it. You just have to believe. Like, you know, you wake up in the morning and you believe in, you know, your own personal deity, your own

[22:58] personal savior, you also have to believe unthinkingly and with faith in the United States alliance because it gets a bit awkward if you start critically thinking about it. Well, except of your two former Australian prime ministers, Malcolm Fraser, who wrote Dangerous Allies, and of course, Paul Keating, who has, you know, spoken and batted off all of the attacks, uh, you know, about us not needing these submarines at all. In fact, a totally different strategy of defense would be

[23:30] more appropriate for us. I mean I I you know there looking back on Malcolm Fraser's time, Malcolm Fraser used to put some a few the occasional red line in to our relationship with the United States. He for example wouldn't let US nuclear armed B-52s come to Australia. Um but otherwise Malcolm Fraser had very much a pro- US >> lean, pro- US alliance lean, but he put some red lines in. Those red lines have been totally white removed off the table

[24:00] by the coalition and labor in the decades since. And you know, I I admire Paul Keading's robust opposition to Orcus, you know, and it reflects my views. It's it's not in Australia's interest. Why the hell are we doing this? You know, um but unfortunately when he was prime minister, he was also very robustly supporting and unquestioningly supporting Australia's military alliance with the United States. you know, US military bases such as Pine Gap and um you know, I like people getting a sort of, you know, um

[24:33] robust sense of independence once they leave office, but bloody hell, it'd be nice if occasionally they did it while they were in office as well. >> Yes, maybe like Goff Whitland, but look what happened to him. >> Thank you so much, David, for that perspective on what's going on. poor Dan Dugen, probably a porn in this whole changing relationship between Australia and China. >> But uh let's hope that we get um an

[25:04] outcome announced. The judgment was reserved in the court. Uh, as I said, the defense are seeking to have the extradition request overturned, but uh we may see it go to the high court if uh if we don't get a satisfactory response. >> Well, my feeling is either way it's likely to find its way to the high court. So, this is round one. And you know, and I just in the when I say that, I just think about all of the stress and the anxiety and the cost that that puts

[25:34] on Dan's family. you know, I know his wife and his kids, uh, they're under an incredible amount of stress. You know, there's an Australian family here that's literally being ripped apart by these proceedings as well, and we shouldn't forget them. So, you know, >> I hope all Australians are thinking about that. You know, what should our government be doing? You got a family in deep distress here, and you would have hoped they're in an Australian family's court, not in the United States military's court, but you know, such is life. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, David.

[26:04] >> Thank you. Thanks. Thanks, Joe. Thanks, John. Sorry I can't stay around um for the rest of it, but uh >> that's okay. You've given us plenty of time. >> Cool. >> Wow. John Kiryaku. >> Um good to see you. >> Good to see you. Thanks for coming on. You have uh submitted an affidavit in the uh Dugen case. Can you tell it? I haven't had time to look at it um because I just got my hands on it, but uh can you tell us why? What's in there?

[26:36] What what what can you attest to? >> Sure. Well, this this actually originated because of a series of articles that I had written for consortium news uh back in 2022 and 2023 about the dilletterious effects of uh solitary confinement on the mental uh well-being of American prisoners. I I said that um that I had not been subjected to to the level of of

[27:08] uh solitary confinement that other many other American prisoners had. I spent a total of nine days in solitary confinement. I needed to lose the weight anyway at the time. I I joked, but the truth is solitary confinement is used in the United States unlike in any other country in the world. it's used as a form of punishment. And one thing that I think almost no Americans realize is that the concept of solitary confinement as a punishment was actually created in the United States. It was created, and I

[27:40] say this in the affidavit, it was invented in 1829 at the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. You can still go to Eastern State and take a tour. It's in ruins now. But uh there were, you know, famous prisoners there like Al Capone and and early murderers and and uh people that we've read about in history books. In any event, in 1829, um, American politicians came up with this

[28:12] idea where they would build this enormous imposing neo gothic escape-proof maximum security penitentiary made of stone. It had just tiny little cells. The guards were in the in the very center and and the the cells went around in in spokes like spokes of a wheel. The idea was that each little tiny cell would have nothing but a bed, a chair, a little table, a

[28:42] small um chamber pot, and a Bible. with the idea being that if a prisoner has nothing to do all day long but eat and sleep and read the Bible that he will come out of prison at the end of his sentence as a good law-abiding Christian man. And what they found was that instead everybody went insane. And that's where we first learned of these severe psychological effects that

[29:15] that solitary confinement has. It it leads to anxiety, depression, paranoia, hallucinations, suicidal thoughts, suicidal actions. So, we've known this for 200 years, and we're still using it. And when I say using it, the United Nations has declared the American use of solitary confinement to be a form of torture. And the United Nations has urged all member countries

[29:47] to limit solitary confinement to a maximum of 15 days. Well, here in the United States, we've had people in solitary confinement for as long as 44 years. And so I gave some examples in this affidavit. There was a a prisoner uh by the name of Anthony Gay. He was severely mentally ill. He was held in a prison in uh in Colorado and placed in solitary confinement right after his conviction.

[30:18] Rather than being placed in a mental hospital where he could have received treatment for schizophrenia, which is what he was suffering from, he was in this small 6x10 ft cell 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. He became paranoid. He be he began self-mutilating. He stabbed himself in the eye with a razor blade. He cut off pieces of his own flesh and ate them. He cut out one of his testicles and hung it on on the

[30:49] doororknob of his cell and then he stitched his scrotum closed with a zipper that he had taken uh out of his pants. He didn't even realize what he was doing. In all, and and get this, this is typical of American uh prisons. In all, his 7-year sentence was eventually extended to 97 years because he kept doing these things and adding time. And what was his crime? In 1993,

[31:19] he was arrested and charged with stealing a $1 bill out of a restaurant tip jar. 97 years in prison and he did two decades of it in solitary confinement. So in the affidavit I I wrote about four or five six of these different cases and I said look because Dan Dugen is a highprofile prisoner. He's going to be placed in either

[31:49] solitary confinement or in something called a communications management unit which is akin to solitary confinement where the prisoner is completely cut off from the outside world. And you know, unless he's stronger than anybody else that I've ever encountered in my life, this is going to have that same kind of dilitterious effect emotionally, mentally uh on him that it's had on uh on everybody else who's gone through it.

[32:20] >> Now, what do you think about what I was talking about before with Senator Shubbridge? Yeah. The thing that killed the Assange case was that he would be debarred from constitutional protection by way of his nationality alone and that was a red line for the British court. Uh >> yes, I think that's the that's the strongest argument and I would even add one here in the United States and and Joe, you know this as well as I do. We've discounted um criminal intent in this country. Did he intend to violate

[32:54] the law? Obviously not. He likely didn't even know there was a law that governed this kind of thing. And even if he did, he wasn't an American citizen. So, it seems to me if the United States is really serious about stopping, let's say, the training of, I don't know, undercover Chinese intelligence officers, they would have asked the Australians to arrest everybody who worked at the flight school, everybody

[33:25] who was training foreign nationals to use these planes, or nobody. But to arrest and then demand the extradition of of just Dan Dugen, that just stinks of politics. >> Yes. And in fact, uh I believe it is the fifth amendment, although I'm not a total expert on American law, but the the bar is reasonable certainty in terms of this foreseeability.

[33:55] You know, that any reasonable person would have known this was a crime. and and in fact there are plenty of indications for Dugen that that it is not a crime, you know, in his country of citizenship. So, >> no, >> you're right. He may not have even known. And you know, another sad thing here is the Australians have been so weak in the face of US demands. So willing to roll over so far that this man has been

[34:25] imprisoned now for years. For years. >> Yeah. >> And he's not even been charged with a crime in Australia. >> Three years. And and why I wish Schubbridge was still here to ask if maybe you know Kathy uh why did Australia put him in solitary confinement? I would imagine the Americans asked him, but I don't know that. Why? >> Um well, I've first of all um as I said in the intro, uh Dugen didn't learn for

[34:56] 62 days uh why he had been arrested. He had no clue. He was clueless, which also points towards his innocence. Uh, but I imagine that the Americans would have said he's quite literally a flight risk, saying he's a pilot. >> Ridiculous. No, >> they could have put a a bracelet around his ankle, of course. And >> Sure. >> But they, you know, I think it's all for show. Just as an aside, Kathy, just as

[35:28] an aside, >> one of my cellmates at the Federal Correctional Institution at Lorettto, Pennsylvania, where I was incarc incarcerated for 23 months, was an Australian national. He was violent. He was a convicted arsonist. Um, and not just an arsonist. He shouted to everybody in the in the Department of Motor Vehicles in Buffalo, New York. I'm going to come back here and burn this

[35:59] place to the ground, even if people are in it. And what did he do? He came back and he burned the place to the ground. He was never in solitary confinement. He ran back to Australia to escape. the the Australians arrested him at the request of the United States. He was never held in solitary confinement. He was finally extradited to the US where he was placed in a low security prison with me. And then he just quietly did his five

[36:30] years and and went home. >> So what makes Dan Dugen so dangerous >> when clearly he's not dangerous? >> Yeah, that's right. But I mean like Assange, he's a kind of a political >> prisoner and case >> in those cases uh as Stella Assange said the punishment is the process. >> Yes. Yes. >> I want to ask you John that was fascinating that sorry that history you gave 1829 >> I was just looked up that James Madison

[37:01] died in 1836. So I mean the guy who wrote the you know the constitution who and all the rights that this country was going to be different from the tyrannies of Europe >> and then in 1829 they came up with this idea. But my question is why when they saw that they went insane and they weren't quoting scripture when they came out. >> They hadn't why did they continue this? So clearly that wasn't the real meeting was it? >> That's a great question. That's a great question and and the answer is because they decided that it was still effective as a form of punishment. Maybe the

[37:32] rehabilitation part didn't work, but by God, nobody wanted to be in solitary, and so that was a good punishment. >> Has it worked as a deterrent? >> Absolutely not. >> No, >> no. It's just cruel, that's all. >> Uh, John, have you been following the case as it's been going through the courts? Um, >> I have, and I've spoken to Sephrine. I've spoken to to Dan's uh legal team in Australia and to his US attorneys. I've

[38:04] met them a couple of times here in Washington. Uh they believe that they have a very strong case. But as in the case of Julian Assange or the case of John Kuryaku or anybody else who faces long periods of time in a in a penitentiary, you might have a a strong case, but an American jury would convict a bologn sandwich, as the old saying goes. And you're free to appeal, but you have to appeal postconviction, >> which means you do all the time first

[38:35] while your appeal winds its way through the courts. This is a no-win situation. So, it has to be nipped in the bud, so to speak. Three-year delay in in the nipping of the bud. Uh on the Australia side, if he's extradited to the US, he's lost. And I'll tell you another thing, too. if he if he is extradited to the US and convicted or extradited to the US and takes a plea to a lesser charge, which would still be a felony, he would be

[39:06] banned from visiting the United States for the next 25 years, but he has eight brothers and sisters, and his parents are still alive, and all of them live in the United States. >> Oh, I didn't know that. I mean, he's got six children as well, >> right? >> A big family. >> They He has an enormous family and he would literally never get to see them again unless they visited him in Australia >> and his parents are quite elderly and they're not going to Australia.

[39:37] >> Yeah. >> Let me ask you, John, of two things. One, I want to ask you in general about grand juries because there are some people in Australia who really insensed about this. We are used to it here in the US. the idea of a grand jury that it is a secret. It's always secret and it always remains sealed. You're not supposed to leak anything for it happens, >> right? >> How democratic of a of a of of a process is it? Grand jury. Why did that happen in the United States? If you know the history of that, I'd be interested. And and why is it so useful to the

[40:08] authorities? You know, I I don't know the history of it, but I can give you my own experience with the grand jury. I was arrested in January of 2012 and charged with five felonies, including three counts of espionage. And um I hadn't been indicted by any grand jury. And so when I went to meet my attorneys the first time, one of them said, "Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. What do you mean you've not been indicted?" And I said, "No, they

[40:40] arrested me and they took me in for arraignment. I pleaded not guilty, but I I've not been indicted by any grand jury. So, they my attorneys went to the justice department and said, "What is this? Some kind of a some kind of a circus?" They said, "Fine. You want him indicted? We'll indict him." This is where I learned about the grand jury system. They just called a group of people together. It's like 30 people. And they um they laid out their case. We had no

[41:13] idea the grand jury was meeting. You're not informed. Uh you're not allowed to speak even if you were informed. You're not allowed to sit in. You're not allowed to ask questions. You're not allowed to do anything. You have no role. They just give their side of the story and they say, "Okay, who wants to indict and send him to trial?" Show of hands. And of course, all 30 are going to say, "Oh yeah, this sounds awful." Espionage. Yes. Uh, you know, classified

[41:44] information. Yes. Yes. Indict. Well, they accidentally leaked the transcript of the grand jury to us. And so, I got to see who my friends really were and who my enemies really were. I got to see them by name, former co-workers, colleagues, people I considered to be friends. And I got to read every single word that they said about me. Well, the bottom line is no one stands a

[42:15] chance before a grand jury. Not a chance. It was ugly. >> An opportunity to what they thought was complete secrecy. They unloaded on you people. >> And you know what, Joe? One of them, you know, I've I've become kind of well known uh not just in the United States, but around the world over the last two years or so only because I've somehow hit the sweet spot in the in the YouTube algorithm. And I was on Joe Rogan last week at 2 and a half million views. I I

[42:47] have a couple of shorts out that have 30, 35, 38 million views. Well, all of a sudden, some of these people are reaching out to me, hey, we should do something together. We should do a speaking tour together. Oh, why don't we have a debate? It's like, do you think I don't know what you said about me on March the 6th, 2012? Because I know exactly what you said about me, and now you want me to be your friend. You want me to help you make money?

[43:19] No, thank you. >> That's that was a unique opportunity to learn that kind of thing. Sometimes I think if I I'd like to die and then still be able to see what people are saying about me, you know, read now. You got that chance. >> But but it's better to see what they're saying about you when you're down. >> Oh, and when you're still alive, too, cuz now you can get back in it. >> That's right. That's right. >> I mean, Kathy, before I turn it back to you, this Why did this take 15 years with Doug? And I mean, this this stuff happened a long time ago. They only

[43:50] indicted him like several years after, six years after that. And then >> nothing's happened until Lincoln shows up. >> The Secretary of State, this shows how political it is. Coming to shore up Australia that they're not getting weak need against China. All of a sudden, that's when Unbelievable. >> That's it right there. That's it right there. Joe, you hit it on the head. This is about China. This is about a political scalp to show that we're tough against China. There was an indictment here in Washington just a week ago, two

[44:20] weeks ago. Uh a former um intelligence officer indicted for allegedly uh passing some sort of analysis to to China. He swears he's innocent. He he was an employee of a think tank, former like naval intelligence or DIA or something like that. Uh but this is about China. And another thing too, and forgive me if if you've heard me say this a million times because I have said it a million times, but these these attorneys, these assistant US attorneys

[44:52] in the in the Department of Justice, they don't get promoted by not prosecuting you, right? They don't get promoted by not trying to, you know, get you some draconian sentence. They all want to be US attorney. They all want to run for Congress or run for governor or have the corner office in the a the alevel uh uh law firm, the big law firm. And so they're going to make that career on your back. And I think that's what

[45:23] we're seeing here. I think that somebody just went through some old files and said, "Hey, I might be able to make this case." And then we can just say it's a China espionage case, right? And so what? This guy, this guy doesn't even love America. They probably said he gave up his American citizenship. What kind of American is that? I'm going to go after him and make a name for myself. >> And then we have the case. >> I hate to be so cynical, but I mean th

[45:54] those were the attitudes that I encountered at the Justice Department. >> Yeah, >> Kathy. >> Well, um I don't have anything really more to say. Let's just wait and see what the result of this uh federal court hearing is. Uh we had uh we had a strange argument going on there about you know when um the dual criminality kicks in, you know, or the absence of dual criminality kicks in. Prosecution

[46:24] was saying, "Oh, it doesn't matter. We can let somebody languish in prison for 2 years before even having an eligibility hearing." uh it doesn't matter, you know, whereas the defense is saying, as soon as someone is arrested, it has to be deemed immediately. We've got to move to action straight away to determine whether this is an extraditable offense, whether this is an extraditable person, whether there's dual criminality. So, uh you know, it it was a very odd argument. I think that

[46:56] the defense did a fantastic job and uh the the prosecution it was so full of sections and subsections it was really quite difficult to follow. Um but we'll see. We'll see. Presently, but might take a couple of weeks before the judgment comes out. And that judgment could be that the eligibility hearing that took place last year, a section 19 hearing they call it, uh which

[47:26] determined that he was eligible for extradition that it will be overturned as the defense request. There's another story here that I should tell you. um is that Dugen had changed his lawyers, right? And so when this section 19 hearing came up, his new lawyers, which is Collery Law, Bernard Collery, the former attorney general of the Australian Capital Territory, those guys hadn't had enough time to study the

[47:58] case. And they asked the judge for more time to, you know, get on top of it and put forward the right arguments. And the judge refused. And so that when they they said, "Well, we've got no arguments to put forth today." And so the judge deemed him eligible for extradition. That's a bit weird. So >> yeah, that sounds like pressure from the US. >> Oh, whatever. Whatever. But it just doesn't sound like bonafide uh due

[48:28] process to me. And >> yeah, I agree. >> A scout to show that we're tough on China. And they even get to judge somewhere. The judge goes along with this. an Australian judge is not it's it's beyond words this um >> they'll do a person yeah a person's life if it serves up >> yeah I want to say one other thing very quickly I I understand we're over time but um Sephrine uh Dan's wife Sephne has been so

[48:59] steadfast in her support how this woman has been able to support her husband with the energy that she has, raise six kids, try not to lose their farm, engage with attorneys, engage with a a public relations person, um find American attorneys, lobby politicians. I She's like a superwoman. And I think that that when he wins this thing, and I really believe that he'll win, it's because of

[49:32] her. Oh, she was in a very bad way when we we talked to her just just a few days before the last hearing. And you know, she when she started off, you know, she she almost broke down immediately, but she she is able to pull herself together and speak sensibly and intelligently about it. So, you know, >> she's fantastic. Wonderful.

[50:02] >> Yeah. >> Thank you, John. Thank you, John. >> Thank you. Good to see you both. >> Okay. >> Yes. Thank you. Bye.
