Welcome back. Right now, we're going to our first hot topic and that is about doctors that now are asking for an increment in their salaries. It used to be 200% they were asking for. Now it's 550% salary increase and they're threatening or they're threatening strike action after two weeks from the 5th of July 2023. So they had already given, had a warning strike, five day warning strike and then there was a time that they gave to government that time as it lasts and the government still according to them did not do anything. Now they are giving the government another two weeks beginning from the 5th of July otherwise they are going to go on strike and what they're asking for like I said is 550% salary increase Well, we are being joined by Dr. Nanna Faiwale who will be talking with us on these issues that the National Association of Resident Doctors have raised. Good morning and welcome to the show doctor. Good morning. Okay. Thank you for having me. Yes, 550% salary increase before we go into whether that is possible or not. What are really the issues? Let's hear from the horses mouth why this agitation is coming up at this time. Okay. Thank you again and thank you viewers out there. As we all know, these are the current issues and just as you recounted last month, the month of May 8th went on, in fact the warning strike from the 17th and on the 19th we had the Constellation meeting headed by the then Honorable Minister of Health for the end of the month of labor and employment and Honorable, His Highest Excellency and Dr. Crete Sengige and when a memorandum of an outstanding was signed and this was based on some of the demands that we raised and the time lines put to them but unfortunately as we speak and this is about each week down the line, nothing had changed from what was signed and government had completely reneged on its commitments and towards our members and I believe that is not correct. And that is the reason why we met again on the 5th of July to reappraise the issues that were raised and it was expected that nothing has changed from where we left off eight weeks ago and so we had no choice than to reissue and refresh and automate some hoping that government will probably do the need for it now. What were in this document, this memorandum of understanding you had with the government? What are the things that they agreed to that they reneged on? They agreed on a couple of things and based on our demands and some of which involved outstanding arrears, keeping arrears from 2014 to 2016, arrears of salaries, consequential adjustments of minimum wage as well as other allowance of our members that were being omitted and also circular on one for one replacement of clinical staff, essentially doctors and nurses who are in the government system because of the death of the manpower and because of the brain drain that is no need to anybody in this country now and then we also spoke about the fact that our certificate has been downgraded by NENCA and NENCA Council of Nigeria and those ones are things that really do not need any commitment other than financial commitment other than to sit down and then address some of these things and also implementation of a 200% adjustment review of the comments and salary structure just to take us back to where we were when these comments was implemented and some 10 years ago and we had to do all of these and without getting any response as of today. OK, so the last correct me from Ron, but the last time you spoke with the government official, it was Quisingige of the former administration, right? Yes, you're correct. Has there been any attempt by this government to speak with you or by your association to speak with this government directly, aside from the strikes? Yeah, thank you. We have made a frank effort at meeting the current government officials with being in Abuja and President and Secretary and other NLC members that have been in Abuja on countless number of times and making attempt to seeing government officials in order to address this issue. But of course, we met with great logs and even the initial counter we had actually not going through again, we understand, we can't understand why that is on, what is happening and because of the fact that we had the one strike because proud to the integration of this current administration and that was enough sensitization and also I praised this at our May OGM, where we also pleaded with the government that we are also sharing because we're supposed to make decision from that May OGM that was hosted by Leipzig University University. We're supposed to make a concrete decision, but we appeal to our members that we should share all our grievances and give this government some ample time to look into the issue. But then, unfortunately, we didn't get any response that we actually looked for. Well, how would you respond to a suggestion by some Nigerians that perhaps your association should wait for this administration to announce its ministers and then you channel your grievances through the minister for a more proper and official discussion that will be more fruitful as against just striking and seeming to be beating the air? Well, yeah, it is easier said than done and I think this struggle is just not about us. I think it's about the common man in the street and I think this is the reality in our teaching hospital now, our hospital is that we have this problem and it's getting worse by the day, patients haven't gotten to wait for hours so you haven't been counseled and a whole lot of these things are taking on heads, workers, the nurses, the doctors who are seen as not being there. Whereas people are bumped out and these are the issues and currently we're doing that. The fact of the matter is that we're still having the same government taking over from the same government. So the issues are not new.  All of them, all the major candidates during the electronic campaign campaign with the fact that they want to address the debt of brain drain and the health sector, especially of clinical staff. And I think that in all should also have spawned them because if they are prioritized health, like in education health, if those are prioritized, I think a very sensitive government will probably pay adequate attention to head and in fact the last constituent meeting that was headed by the then Honorable Minister of Labor and Employment, all the permanent circuitries of the major concerned ministries were in attendance. So those are the most senior civil servants and they are still there. They never left. So they are still there. So whoever is interfacing the current government with us can go through the permanent circuitry and get the system sorted. OK, but 550% is quite a lump sum. We know how Nigerians cried when there was a rumor that members of the National Assembly were asking for 114%. Yes, we understand that politicians get a lot of money, more than a lot of civil servants. Yes, but 550% for just workers when the national minimum wage of 30% or 30,000 Naira has not been paid by a lot of states. And even the federal government is struggling to pay the minimum wage. Workers now are asking for 200% and then 200,000 as a minimum wage. And the health workers are asking for 550%, which will run to a lot of money. How do you think that is realizable? Is that not really demanding without a human face? Thank you so much. If you have followed our argument over this issue, we've been very scientific about it. I would don't just throw figures out without putting it through some rigor in terms of trying to assess the situation. And our assessment, even as of the time we made the request as of July 7, 2022, we round the numbers and the variables that we used were the forest exchange, the PMS rate as of the time, about 10 years ago when this situation was done, the inflation rate and so many others. First thing generally, when the subsidy was removed, it further indicated that it took us to something over 550% increment or even take us to where we were 10 years ago. But then, if you really communicate very well, we're very organized. We don't fit up with our demands. We still maintain that what we demand from the government is still a minimum of 200% and not 550%. We just had that at the preamble that when we round the figure, following the removal of subsidy, it took us to something over 550%. All right, so a few days from now, you're going to go back on this strike. How long will this strike be this time? Any idea? Well, we are not strike mongers. The reason why we're doing it, we have given countless and repeated automations. And the reason why we're doing it is just to give ample time. Let government come to the table and let us have a discussion around this. If we can solve these things that can be sorted within the next time given as a part of one for one replacement, the president of the committee on breathing had concluded his sitting as far back as February. The head of service was supposed to release a circular to all the various institutions so that they can start taking up and replacing those that are leaving the system to prevent the worsening of brain burnout. But then this hasn't been done, doesn't mean anything. It just has been concluded, the report has been submitted. Issues circular to it, it hasn't been done. So we're not looking up for us to go and strike if government does the needful. But if they don't, then we may not be, when we're left with no choice, guided by our neck in taking a decision. So I will not be able to say what exactly the decision of neck would be. And that would be in the next two weeks. Okay, in the next two weeks, like she was asking, we would have loved to know if it's going to be an indefinite strike or it's also going to be a two-week strike or another warning strike and all that. At least when it has a name, we know how long it might stay and what alternatives Nigerians will have. But you doing essential duties, one would expect that there will be less strikes and all that. Don't you have any other option? Must it be a strike? Have you explored all other options and what were there if it will now come back to be a strike? Thank you again. Unfortunately, we had always, we're open to negotiation, we're open to discussion and we're always a billion people. But unfortunately, we have only half. Oh, well, technical glitch. And government, right? Yeah, just wrap it up. Let's just wrap it up. It would appear that it would. I don't want to use that if sign on engagement with option, we really do not help. Can you hear me? Yes, just wrap up. Just wrap up, yes. Just as we've said, we have been called essential worker, but we've not been given the preference that such appellation deserves and that is very worrisome. Even recently I was reading currently that US, US, Canada, they are also further softly, they are making it more easy, easier rather for doctors and non-systems and other clinical staff to even come to the system. I will talk about the push and push issues. And if you are making it even difficult to get the most basic needs, then the people at the receiving end of this brain drain are also making it easier for the clinical staff to come. It gives us a whole lot of worry because we just don't place copyright in this country. Well, Dr. Fayawale, we do hope that the government will respond positively to your demands and we find a solution because we can't bear to not have doctors be around to take care of us. It's too essential, it's too critical to have you leave the scene. We do hope that you'll find solutions to these or the government will meet your demands and we hope that you too will meet them halfway at least so that it can be practicable enough to find solutions to whatever your demands might be. And we do hope that it's not just going to be about their salary increase, but a total, a holistic turnaround in the health system because it is really very depressing to go to hospitals and see Nigerians lying on the bare floor, seek Nigerians in need of immediate health attention. Some of them being turned back even, no space even on the corridor for them. So these are some of the things that we hope to see change as you get the needed attention in that sector. Thank you so much, Dr. Faiowale for your time. Thank you for having me. Okay, Dr. Nana Faiowale is the Deputy Editor National Association of Resident Doctors at NAAD. So we'll take a short break and when we return, we'll continue with other issues, stay with us.


The social security number as we do remember the IRS the government they see you as a number so you've got to get the number right if you don't get the number right then they won't see you you'll be like a ghost it won't be good so obviously if you don't put the proper social security number that will tie on and match to the name on the tax form you might not even be able to electronically file because it'll be kicked back the system will not recognize it if you send in something by mail that has an incorrect social security number that could delay the process could confuse the IRS and when the IRS is confused it delays the process it causes problems typically you want to avoid that so an incorrect or missing SS in which is social security number can increase your tax reduce your refund or delay your refund to apply for an SS in you can fill in form SS five you can find that on the IRS website you can search for it at irs.gov irs.gov and return it along with the appropriate evidence documents to the social security social security card the administration that's the ssa the social security administration another another government entity not the same as the irs but they're going to handle that type of identification information which of course the irs communicates with and will have and needs to line up when their processing the tax returns so you can get the form ss five online at ssa.gov forward slash forms forward slash ss five dot pdf so you can find that from your local ssa office social security administration office or by calling the ssa at eight hundred seven seven two one two one three it usually takes about two weeks to get an ssn once the ssa has all the evidence and information it needs i'll say so check that both the name and social security number on your form 1040 or 1040 sr w2 and 1099 agree with the social security card so note you've got your social security number and then you're going to get documentation from the people you work for and people that paid you typically that's going to be the w2 form the w2 form will have your name and social security number and the irs is going to have a copy of the w2 forms having the name and social security number on it as well and then also you're going to have the 1099s possibly depending on your circumstances which also have your name social security number the irs has a copy of that as well so ideally we have the same names and social security numbers on the tax return that we file as well as the w2 forms that were filed by our employer and the 1099 forms if they are not then that could cause confusion now obviously if you file the tax return with an incorrect social security number that doesn't match the name you might not even be able to electronically file so you'll see kind of the problem fairly immediately in that kind of situation or you could file and it'll confuse the irs if there's something different on your social security number then is on the supporting documentation from the irs like the w2s and the 1099s that could just you would think cause the irs to be confused with the w2s and the 1099s they might not tie that w2 to what you are filing meaning they don't have the supporting or backup information on their end to tie it to now that might not cause a problem because if you're reporting income that they don't have supporting document for then then they'll probably not going to stop you from recording income because you'll end up paying taxes on it but obviously if the reverse happened they had a w2 that you didn't report that's usually when you would expect it to cause more problems because then they're going to say that you had income that you did not report with that's going to cause concern on their end so in any case so if they don't certain deductions and credits on form 1040 or 1040 SR may be reduced or disallowed and you may not receive credit for your social security earnings so remember that's the other one that you just want to keep in mind that you're withholding usually we think about the income tax with the form 1040 that's what it's there for but the payroll taxes social security is important to make sure that that it's properly allocated to the right social security number and name so that you get the proper benefit calculations maximizing the benefits at retirement age for those items so if your form w2 shows an inaccurate social security number or name notify your employer or the form issuing agent as soon as possible to make sure your earnings are credited to your social security record so note again if you probably be able to file the tax return in that case and get your refund but if the w2 is not properly uh recorded in terms of the social security number name then you're not compiling the social security credit that you're paying into the program to get the maximum benefit so you want to make sure to correct that so if the name or social security number on your social security card is incorrect you can call the ssa


I'm Ben Mears. I'm a postdoc over at CISA and I was asked to give this talk on an introduction to cohomology so thanks for the opportunity to speak. So my idea for this is that it doesn't seem that there are very many algebraic topologists here in Trieste and many students come without really having very much of a background in algebraic topology and so I want this to be sort of a segue for people who are maybe uncomfortable with algebraic topology to get sort of an intuitive feel so that you can go on to read some more advanced textbooks that at first might seem very technically daunting. So one of my favorite books of all time is bought into differential forms in algebraic topology. I would highly recommend it and this talk is very heavily influenced from that. So I don't want to really assume anything aside from some basic mathematical sophistication. So what is cohomology? So for any ring R cohomology with coefficients in R is going to associate a smooth manifold X with a graded R algebra cohomology of X with coefficients in R. Am I writing big enough? Besides some basic mathematical sophistication so I'm not, instead of defining everything I'm going to give some examples and let people not necessarily if you do know what these mean then that's good if you don't then you'll see some examples so that you can figure out what they mean at least in in in most cases. So yeah let me just leave it at that and it's going to get very concrete in a moment. So what I want to do is look at the case X is CP2. So this is complex projective space so this is the set of all triples C1 Z2 Z3 in C3 minus 0 and this is subject to the equivalence relation Z1 Z2 Z3 is equivalent to multiplying each of these entries by a non-zero complex scaler. Okay so in this particular case cohomology of CP2 and I'm going to take with the ring R is going to be the real numbers so CP2 cohomology with coefficients in R this is going to be a three-dimensional vector space and it's going to be spanned so so this is a grading this dot is basically a slot to indicate the grading so the zero graded piece H0 this is going to be the span of 1 H2 is going to be the span of some element I'm going to call H little H and H3 is going to be the span of H squared thank you H4 and all of the other graded pieces are going to be zero so this obviously has the ring structure H you have H times H equals H squared and H cubed is equal to zero so degree is going to be additive under multiplication so you multiply two things of degree two and you get something of degree four and so on and the other very important property is that cohomology is a functor so that means that if F is a smooth map between smooth manifolds X and Y this is going to induce a map F star going in the opposite direction of cohomology and identity maps are going to go to identity maps and compositions are going to go to compositions so an important simple consequence of functoriality is that diffeomorphisms are going to induce ring isomorphisms so so let's say Phi or I was calling it F so if F is a diffeomorphism yeah yeah the arrow is yes so the pullback goes in the opposite direction so if F is a diffeomorphism then F star is going to be a ring isomorphism so this is a simple consequence of functoriality because F is a diffeomorphism let's break this down this means that there exists a map F inverse such that F composed with F inverse is the identity on Y and F inverse composed with F is the identity on X and then you go to the ring isomorphism side or the ring side and this translates into inverse star composed with F star is the identity on H of Y so composition the order of compositions is also going to get reversed and F star composed with F inverse star is the identity on co homology on X okay so what else do we have so let me think of a simple geometric example so let's say we have a surface of genus G so this looks like this in the case G equals three if we do a reflection reflect about some point we can reflect about some plane we can reverse the orientation on this surface now CP2 has this very interesting property that the orientation that it has cannot be reversed with a diffeomorphism and this is going to follow from co homology and I'm going to explain how this happens it's essentially a consequence of this ring structure and functoriality so the point is co homology is a very useful tool because if you want to study diffeomorphisms diffeomorphisms are extremely complicated there they form this infinite dimensional space of maps but then if you apply a functor like co homology that throws away a lot of information but if you're lucky and the relevant information remains after you've applied the functor then you're working with a much much simpler object just a simple ring which is a three-dimensional vector space over the real numbers in this case and it's very easy to analyze and we'll be able to see a contradiction with what we're trying to show so trying to prove that for CP2 has no orientation reversing diffeomorphism this would be almost impossible to show directly but using co homology is very simple so so let me give a proof up to a lot of details about co homology unfortunately I won't be able to fill in 100% of the details but this should at least give you the sense of why this is true by contradiction suppose f maps CP2 to CP2 is a diffeomorphism which reverses orientation this implies that f star the induced map on the co homology rings this is going to be isomorphism of the co homology ring okay so right so this is a good point so what does CP2 bar mean so CP2 bar has a very common meaning in geometry this is equal to CP2 with with opposite the usual orientation so it's the bar indicates orientation reversal this also is very reminiscent of complex conjugation so you can take a triple in here and look at the map which sends z1 z2 z3 to z1 bar z2 bar z3 bar this is going to be a well-defined map on CP2 and it's actually going to preserve the orientation so this is not complex conjugation and note complex conjugation preserves the orientation of CP2 are there any questions I see some confused looks okay so co homology is yeah this is giving a talk like this is somewhat impossible of a certain sense because you really have to jump in and immerse yourself to understand everything if I gave all the definitions then three hours later we would yes yes because I'm going to run into that do people know what a diffeomorphism is okay well feel free to interrupt me if I'm going to get to that so so my idea is to start with the actual example here and see how the example works in as an algebraic structure so you have this algebraic structure and the properties of the algebraic structure give you this proof and then once you see how the algebraic structure reflects the structure of the CP2 then we can go and try and understand how the structure is built up so that's my plan okay so so f star always preserves the degree so in other words f star is going to map h0 to h0 h2 to h2 and h4 to h4 so f star being a ring homomorphism so that means that you have a ring so a ring is something with a structure of addition and multiplication satisfying the normal rules so f star being a ring homomorphism means it's going to preserve it's going to send addition to addition and multiplication to multiplication so in particular so we have an element one an element h and an element h squared and I need to tell you where these can possibly go under a ring homomorphism so in h0 we have to have one being mapped to one so where can we map h to so h is going to map to something that's in the span of h so it's going to be some lambda times h for some lambda in R so this is not going to be specified it's going to be a parameter of the of of the ring homomorphism and now h squared maybe I should write this as f star of one is equal to one f star of h is equal to lambda h f star of h squared this because it's a ring homomorphism this is f star of h squared so this is lambda h squared which is lambda squared h squared why do these have to map to each other okay so these super scripts indicate the degree so I have a decomposition of my ring into pieces of different degree so degree zero degree two and degree four so whenever I multiply two things whenever I multiply two things I'm going to add the degrees so so the span of one this is the span over the real numbers so this is going to be just a copy of the ring R so in degree h0 I have just the ring R so span of h this is r times h and the span of h squared this is r times h squared so if I multiply something in h2 by something in h0 this is a scalar times some fact some multiple of h that's going to go from that that's going to end up in h2 because 0 plus 2 is 2 but if I multiply two things in h2 then that's going to end up in h4 if I multiply something in h2 times something in h4 then that has to end up in h6 and we're going to see later on that the small h is going to be represented by the scalar form on CP2 yeah it's a two form h squared is going to correspond to the volume form it is but I should continue with the proof I think okay so there's one other thing which I haven't told you yet and that is that an orientation of an n manifold is going to induce a non-zero linear map and I'm going to write this linear map with the symbol of integration over x so this is going to be very suggestive of what these objects represent this integration over x this is a linear map from hn of x to the real numbers and the opposite orientation is going to induce so integral over x bar where the bar represents the opposite orientation for x this is equal to minus the one of the usual orientation h squared is going to be twice the volume form does that make you happier but it's still h squared yeah and it is the volume form using the wedge product no the wedge square only vanishes on odd forms for even forms the wedge square can be non-zero so we're kind of having our own little discussion here so I think I should okay so if f is orientation preserving then so I want to explain how this integral map that is induced from the orientation changes under an orientation preserving diffeomorphism so so k is going to be an element in the nth cohomology and if I compare the integral map on k to the integral map on f star applied to k these are going to be the same and if f star is orientation reversing then you're going to have a minus sign I can't hear you oh yes yes thank you if the original function f then the induced map on the ring we don't have orientations on rings except for this is the corresponding notion for an orientation on a ring okay so from here we are essentially done after a quick computation because so for cp2 all we need to do is plug in k is equal to h squared so if we do this then we find that integral over x of f star of h squared this is equal to well on one hand we know that this is equal to integral over x of lambda squared f star of h on the other hand so this is using the ring homomorphism on the other hand we have that this is equal to minus sorry h squared h squared on the other hand this is equal to minus h squared by the orientation reversing so this is a linear map so I can pull out the lambda squared and what I get is that lambda squared plus one times integral of x of h squared is equal to zero so did I go too fast so pull out the lambda squared here and then bring this to the other side so I get one plus lambda squared times the integral so this means that either lambda squared plus one is equal to zero or this integral here is equal to zero now this can't happen because this is a non-zero linear map no I can take that positive number to be one so the induced map on on cohomology is if you think of integer cohomology the real cohomology is the image of integer cohomology in there and under integer cohomology that number is always one for instance right I don't have yeah yeah and in general you're going to get the degree as a multiplicative factor out there so it's always going to be an integer but for diffeomorphism it has to be plus or minus one okay so because this is a non-zero linear map and because h4 is spanned by h h squared the only way that this this integral has to be something non-zero so this implies that lambda squared plus one is equal to zero for a real number which is a contradiction so the structure of the cohomology ring is is prohibiting diffeomorphism which reverses the orientation and this is at least in my opinion the heart of what makes cohomology a very powerful tool so maybe I should reflect a little bit more on on what this is saying okay so if so in general because we can divide by the integral of h squared what what this is saying is that lambda squared is equal to the integral over x of f star of h squared over integral of x of h squared so recall that so f star is going to add a factor of h squared here which you can pull out and then the denominator just cancels so this is lambda squared written in terms of this integral here and this is equal to minus one if if f is orientation reversing and plus one if f is orientation preserving so the only possibilities are lambda is plus or minus one and f preserves orientation so for a diffeomorphism what you can do basically in in terms of trying to swap the orientation you can try and swap the sign on h but for h squared you can't change the sign if you're doing this over the complex numbers then this argument would break down but because we're doing this over the real numbers and we can do this over the real numbers because I can choose this ring to be whatever I want then we have this contradiction of not being able to flip the sign so what this is saying is that as orientation or oriented manifolds cp2 and cp2 bar are distinct manifolds up to orientation preserving diffeomorphisms so oh sorry I are people not able to see this so as oriented manifold cp2 and cp2 bar are distinct manifolds up to orientation preserving diffeomorphisms so strangely enough cp2 is not the simplest example of such a manifold it's a little bit difficult to see this because this case is so so degenerate but the zero-dimensional manifold consisting of a single point with some chosen orientation which corresponds to either plus one or minus one so positively oriented point this has no orientation reversing diffeomorphism okay so I was going to sketch the details of how how this ring arises from cp2 so how do you go from cp2 to this ring structure so cp2 is a complex manifold this means that the tangent bundle of cp2 has an endomorphism J and this satisfies J squared is minus the identity and this endomorphism is what induces the complex structure now cp2 also has a special metric called the Fubini's Studi metric and associated this is a Riemannian metric on cp2 and it has a Levy-Chavita connection and you can look at the covariant derivative of this endomorphism and it turns out that for this special choice of metric this complex structure is covariantly constant it may not be the simplest way but the there there is there is no especially simple way that I can think of to express this so this is just one of many ways of of going about this this is I think the most concrete way of I mean yeah so it's so I I don't expect everyone to understand every word that I'm saying but the essence of what I'm saying doesn't require understanding every single word but but the point is that there's something called a scalar form and this is very easy to define so if G is the Fubini's Studi metric so G evaluated on two-vector on two-vectors X and Y gives the dot product of these two vectors these are two vectors in the same tangent space and I can act by the complex structure on one of these vectors and this is going to be anti-symmetric and omega of XY is defined to be this anti-symmetric bilinear form on the tangent bundle and so this H is going to be associated with omega so at a single point omega is going to be it's going to look something like I actually I think I should leave it at that for now and omega squared so so H squared is going to be associated with the volume form okay and even more simply one in H zero this is going to be the constant function one okay this obviously isn't a complete explanation and then finally this linear map which is associated with integration this is going to correspond to integration of the volume form on on the man on on CP2 okay so we have these three objects I haven't really explained how you get them but you can ask how do you know that the cohomology ring doesn't contain anything else and this again I can't really give a complete explanation but there's something called the Meyer v. Atourist sequence so Meyer v. Atourist this if you decompose a manifold x into the union of two sets a and b this relates the cohomology of x with cohomologies b and the intersection of a and b so one thing you hear in topology quite often is somebody computes the cohomology of something and in my view it's a little bit of a misnomer because you don't actually plug cohomology into a formula and get an answer out after after doing some simple computations but you have some relation between the cohomologies of simpler spaces and spaces that are built up from patching together these more complicated spaces and in practice what you do in order to compute something like this is you take the cohomology of simpler things and use that to infer the cohomology of the larger things indirectly so computation of cohomology is usually very indirect so let me give some other examples so cohomology of cpn with real coefficients this is going to be the ring r with a variable h subject to the relation h to the n plus 1 is equal to 0 so in the case of cp2 I have the ring that's generated by h and subject to the relation h cubed is equal to zero so I have one h h squared and nothing more so in cpn you have one h h squared h cubed all the way up to hn so it's the span of one h h squared hn it's possible to plug in other manifolds so cohomology of rp2 let's say rp2n this is the same as the cohomology of a point which is just the span of one so it's a very boring cohomology ring so cohomology sometimes throws away too much information and you lose all of the structure but there are ways around this so here I'm using real coefficients if I were to look at cohomology with integer coefficients you might think well the integers are smaller than the reals so I should get some smaller answer but it turns out that you get something bigger so you get integers with h modulo so 2h is equal to zero so h is a torsion element 2h is equal to zero and h to the n plus 1 is equal to zero oh and I should have said that the degree of h is equal to 2 the degree of h here is also equal to 2 and so in terms of the vector space well a vector space over a ring that's not a field is called a module it's the same idea though so in this case we have it's the this is z in degree 0 0 in degree 1 z mod 2z in degree 2 and it's going to alternate between z mod 2z up until z mod 2z in degree n and then zero after so the difference between coefficients in the integers and coefficients in the reals is that z mod 2z this is something non-trivial consisting of zero one r mod 2r well that's zero as a final example I want to consider the two torus so the cohomology of s1 times s1 with real coefficients this is going to be a ring with two variables a and b subject to the relations a squared is equal to zero b squared is equal to zero and a times b is equal to minus b times a so the ring is not commutative it's actually super commutative so odd cohomology acts like fermions and even cohomology acts like bosons so the product satisfies the rule x times y is equal to minus one times the degree of x times the degree of y times y times x so x times y equals y times x unless both x and y are odd degree in which case the sign flips yeah so I prepared a whole lot more than this so I don't know what people want to do so I guess I can mention what my plan is and depending on if people have the will or energy to actually see this I can do it or just skip this but I was going to explain how to the simplest method of defining cohomology just dirham cohomology so I was going to explain how to get this from first principles so looking at locally constant functions how you're naturally led to an anti-symmetric product and differential forms and the exterior derivative and how that naturally leads to cohomology so I'm sorry it took so long and I didn't really seem to get very far but yeah yeah so probably it makes the most sense at this point to take a break and let people decompress a little bit and then if people are still around then I can give some I can basically motivate the definition of dirham cohomology in a really slick way


Hi, and welcome to the session. I am Deepika here. Let's discuss the question using mathematical induction Prove that d by dx of x is to power n is equal to nxn minus 1 for all positive integers n. So let's start the solution. Given statement is, d by dx of x is to power n is equal to nxn minus 1. We have to prove that this statement is true for all positive integers n. And this we have to prove by using mathematical induction. So let us start for n is equal to 1. We have d by dx of x is to power 1 is equal to 1 into x is to power 0, which is equal to 1. Here d by dx of x is to power 1 is equal to 1. Hence statement holds for n is equal to 1. Let us assume that statement is true for n is equal to k. That is, d by dx of x is to power k is equal to k into x is to power k minus 1. So let us give this equation as number 1. Now we will prove that statement is true for n is equal to k plus 1. So let's, for n is equal to k plus 1. Now d by dx of x is to power k plus 1 is equal to d by dx of x is to power k into x. So this is equal to x is to power k into d by dx of x plus x into d by dx of x is to power k. So this we have obtained by the product's rule. This is again equal to x is to power k into 1 plus x into now use equation 1. The derivative of x is to power k is k into x is to power k minus 1. So this is k into x is to power k minus 1 using equation 1. So this is equal to x is to power k plus k into x is to power k minus 1 plus 1. And this is equal to x is to power k plus k into x is to power k, which is equal to x is to power k into 1 plus k. This can be written in the form. 1 plus k into x is to power 1 plus k minus 1. Therefore, statement is true for n is equal to k plus 1. Statement is true for n is equal to k plus 1 whenever it is true for n is equal to k. Hence the given statement d by dx of x is to power n is equal to n x n minus 1 is true for all n. Hence proof for all positive integers n. Hence proofed. I hope the question is clear to you. Bye and have a nice day.


Consortium News this year has been celebrating its 25th anniversary as the oldest independent news site on the web. Building on the legacy of our founder Robert Perry, Consortium News has continued its non-partisan approach to the news in an age of frenzied and deep-seated partisanship. Among the most crucial stories we've covered from the Middle East to war crimes and equality and police violence has been the Julian Assange case. In the absence of corporate media coverage of the media trial of the century, we've provided daily reports from a video link directly from the courtroom and nightly video wrap-ups. January 4th is judgment day for Julian Assange but appeals are likely after that. Please help us to continue to cover the Assange story and the many other pressing issues of our day. Do that by making a completely tax deductible donation as the 2020 tax year comes to an end. Go to our homepage on consortiumnews.com and click on the big red button that says donate. We've achieved a lot in 25 years and we couldn't do it without you, our readers and our viewers. So please support us as we enter the second quarter century of Consortium News. Welcome to CN Live episode 23 of season two, A Pardon for Assange. I'm Joe Laurier, Editor-in-Chief of Consortium News. And I'm Elizabeth Voss. As Donald Trump is about to leave office and Julian Assange languishes in a Belmarsh prison in London, voices are rising for Trump to pardon the WikiLeaks publisher. One of these voices is George Christensen, a member of the Australian Federal Parliament. He has made an appeal directly to the American President. And joining us today to discuss that is Mr. George Christensen from Queensland, his constituency. Thank you very much for joining us today. Well, thank you, Joe and Elizabeth and all the team here. I want to ask you why you think Julian Assange deserves a pardon and what led you to take these steps to call directly on Trump to give him one?  And I thought that he'd done something terrible that he'd leaked a whole heap of top secret information that was going to harm us somehow and that actually harmed people that were fighting for us. And then I actually found out that that's actually not at all what had gone on and that the charges against Assange, it comes from my part of the world. I'm from North Queensland and Julian Assange was raised in North Queensland. But I mean, what they're alleging against Assange for reporting on the truth is that he somehow committed conspiracy to hack and to espionage. And what that amounts to is that he told someone how to get information to him, which I'm sure journalists do all the time. And he told someone WikiLeaks actually put out a general call to the broader community saying that if you've got any secret information that you want to whistle blow, we'll take that information. Now that is hardly a conspiracy. But for all of this is going to languish in the jail cell potentially for 175 years. There's going to be something deeper to this, really deeper to this than what meets the eye. And I think that this is where I probably get very, very incensed about this. I think it's combination of things, combination of things of Julian Assange exposing the tactics of the deep state against their own citizens in the United States, which is wrong. And I'm a conservative that called me ultra conservative in Australia. You know, big government overreach is something that conservatives don't like. And I don't like it. So when you've got the deep state, you know, the military industrial complex, basically, in their spying on its own citizens, something's wrong. And Assange exposed that, but he also exposed Hillary Clinton and the Democrats have never, ever forgotten that. And I think that this is one of the other reasons that there's been this vendetta against Assange. I don't think it's related to Trump at all. I think that actually Trump's probably got sympathies with Julian Assange. We know several times during the 2016 campaign, how much he loved WikiLeaks. I suspect he does still have a soft spot for him. That's why you decided to make this appeal to him? Well, you know, lots of people hate him, lots of people love him. I'm in the latter camp. I think that Donald Trump's been a shake up to the system in America. And it's probably what was needed. He has been a president who has stood up for free speech against the tech tyrants, our social media overlords, who tell us what we can put up online and what we can't. He stood up on free speech in regards to what can be said on campuses, which are university campuses, which are becoming pretty much zero free speech zones. And he's also stood up on free speech when it comes to religious liberty. So there's been three executive orders around those issues that he's released. Donald Trump is a defender of free speech. And I think that in this instance, he should be a defender of free speech as well. I'm hoping that he will be and I think that he will be because this is First Amendment rights that are going to go out the window if the powers that be in the US that want to bring Julian Assange to heel actually have their way. So I'm hoping that as a Republican, as a conservative, as someone who supports free speech that Donald Trump will stand up for the First Amendment rights. Do you have any contacts at the White House or anybody you know who knows him? Yeah, I do. So I've got several people working on this and there's people who know people. Certainly got some inroads into Mark Meadows who, as you know, is his chief of staff there and others that are associated with the Trump administration. So I've been contacting some Republican congressmen and senators that I know of that I've got some affiliations to and I know other people that know them. So we're getting this message in there and my understanding is that the White House already knows about this and they've already heard about it. And they're hearing it from more than just me, right? You've got people like Paul Joseph Watson who's also an internet commentator or conservative internet commentator that Donald Trump has retweeted a couple of times who are now out there posting things on Twitter or tweeting out, share this or retweet if you want to pardon for a science. Obviously, you've had Pamela Anderson do a thing too. So that might have had a bit more cut through than than myself. Judging by what we know of Trump and the kind of women that he hires, yes. I want to ask you one more before I go to Elizabeth. You say you switched. It's very interesting because Nils Meltzer, you probably know, has told the same story that he believed all the hype and the smears against the Sange and then he suddenly started looking into and realized that there were lies and that there was more to this case. When you heard Julia Gillard, the former prime minister, say that the Sange had broken the law and then later she was reprimanded by the federal police, I think, who said that he hadn't broken any law. When she said that, did you agree with her? And what made you change? Was there one thing or what got you interested to come to you? You see Julia Gillard's on the other side of politics and I'm trying to remember when all of that happened. I think that I was sort of uncertain at that point in time. I guess that part of my background is that unfortunately I was one person who at the time thought that it was the right thing for us to do to go into the Iraq war. Since then, I think that that was the worst thing that we could have done and I very much regret politically even supporting it. I wasn't a member of parliament at that stage. I was an absolute nobody back then so my opinion really didn't matter. But now that I know what's happened out of these endless forever wars, there's no way that we should be part of never again. So my views evolved on a few issues like that and it also has evolved on people like Julian Assange who want to expose war crimes and expose the truth of things. So yes, all I heard was the mainstream media just bleeding at me day after day that he'd given up top secret information that was going to let our enemies harm us and potentially has gotten people killed and then subsequently found out actually that there's no US or Australian personnel that have been killed as a result of what Julian Assange or WikiLeaks have done. But what have they done? They have published the truth. The truth that certain people don't like to see in print. The truth that certain people in the upper echelons of governments, the deepest echelons of government, don't want their own citizens to know. Truth such as, yep, there were war crimes that were committed in Afghanistan. Truth like the US intelligence regime is spying on its own citizens without their knowledge, probably without cause. And all this has made Julian Assange the target. So look, the answer to your question, my views have just evolved and I've read Bill a bit because I just no longer believe what the mainstream media just throw up to us. I mean, there was stuff about Julian Assange being a Russian asset.  So you're going to continue to get that. Elizabeth. Yeah, I wanted to ask you, George, about what you make of some of the testimony we heard during the extradition hearing of Assange in the UK where we heard Jennifer Robinson, Julian Assange's lawyer testified about the allegations that the Trump administration essentially was behind this offer to pardon Assange if he would reveal sources of the 2016 documents and other issues that were brought up in the testimony of that hearing where it seems that the Trump administration is behind this effort to prosecute Assange. So my question, though, is if that's true, why do you think that would be? And if it's true, how likely do you think that it is that Trump would change his mind? Well, look, the charges against Julian Assange and the witch hunt started under the Obama administration. And yes, the charges were laid, and the extradition was sought under the Trump administration. But do I think that Donald Trump actually made that decision personally to do that? No, I don't. And I think that anyone who would think that is probably a bit crazy. I don't think that Donald Trump made that decision whatsoever. I think up until that point, he was very, very supportive of WikiLeaks for what they exposed about Hillary Clinton. And I think that the questions that, you know, the media, the mainstream media once again, they tried to hound Donald Trump at that point in time. Ah, you were supportive of Julian Assange. You were supportive of WikiLeaks. Look at all these statements that you made in the past. And yes, he was. It was true. And because there'd been an arrest or charges issued, an extradition being sought, I guess that made things pretty uncomfortable at that time for Trump. But in relation to the question about the offer of a pardon, look, again, I can only speculate here. I don't know what went on. There was that allegation that I think it was representative Rawbacker from memory went to Assange and basically said, if you testify as to who gave you the information that the Democrats are claiming come from Russia, we could arrange a pardon for you. Now, whether he said that with or without the imprimatur of Donald Trump, I don't actually think it matters. I think what matters is the substance. If that did indeed occur, and I don't doubt that it did occur actually, I think it probably did. What was being said there, what was being said is that the Trump campaign knew that that information definitely did not come from Russia. They knew that that's exactly what Julian Assange would testify. But Assange, being the ethical journalist that he is, didn't want to give up his sources, his sources, which may or may not be, will probably never know, be someone by the name of Seth Rich. And perhaps that is exactly what Donald Trump and his team wanted to come out during the entire Russia collusion story that was going on that turned out to be false pretty much. So why didn't the offer him a pardon? Well, I guess he didn't at that point do what was being asked. Should he get a pardon regardless? Absolutely. And I think Donald Trump's in the mood for handing him out at the moment with his view that people within the administration have helped to bring him down. And that's probably true. And the moment is in the mindset of declassify everything. That'd be great. Absolutely. And I think that that's a really fascinating take. But it does beg the question. And a lot of people have asked this question kind of on both sides of the political aisle. And that is, do you think that maybe Trump could have been threatened by the deep state that you referenced earlier? Is there a possibility that that's why he's allowed this prosecution to be pushed? And he has not pardoned him? And if so, to what extent do you think he's motivated by that type of thing? Yeah, I'd be only speculating about anything like that. Look, I've no doubt, actually, even just being in a lower level, like I'm the equivalent of a congressman in America. I head up a committee. It's not a huge committee. It's not like intelligence or anything like that. I just know, even at my level, the Machiavellian Skull Duggery that goes on in Australian politics. And I'm not at a high level. So I'm sure it gets even worse and it gets deeper. And it's not just politicians out to get each other, it also involves, in some cases, security services. It probably is even much worse than that in Washington, D.C., is all I could say. I can't speculate as to what someone may or may not have said to Donald Trump to do or to not to do. All I can hope is that he's his own man. And I think he is.  George, yeah, you remind me of that TV series Secret City, if you've seen it about Skull Duggery of Tambor. But that struck me as extremely realistic, by the way. I haven't actually seen it, but I've heard about it. It's extraordinary. I've just, as a journalist, it ran completely true. And as a politician, I think you probably see it that way too. You just mentioned the two words that will drive any hardcore centrist Democrat up a wall. But which we have been lambasted because we did two articles and two CNI programs over the last four years of the hundreds, even thousands of articles that we've done. And that was the word Seth and the word Rich. Rich, yeah, yeah. Now, I'm only following this up now at great risk because you may have seen that just the other day, a lawyer for Yeah, I did. Okay, so the FBI is made of the average laptop all this time? Yeah. Why would they have this laptop? Why do they have the laptop of some guy that got mugged in Washington DC? Was it like? It's a local crime, not a federal crime. I mean, but why would the FBI have his laptop? I mean, that's very peculiar, don't you think? Why is not on the front page of the New York Times? That I can answer, but I can't answer why I have the laptop for four years now. It was a local crime. So the federal government should not be involved. That's right. They lied and said they didn't have it. They also have admitted they have 20,000 pages in which Seth Rich's name is mentioned. That's right. And the lawyer, Ty Clevengers, did the foyer, claims he's going to get these over time. So anybody, any journalist of any stripe of who should be non-partisan, but you're not a journalist, I might say, should be interested in what this has to say without taking any position. We just want to see what this is. The fact is that Julian did strongly imply that it was Seth Rich on his TV program. Seymour Hirsch said on this surreptitiously recorded interview with Red Batowski that in fact he had a source in the FBI. They had his computer and they'd looked at it and they showed that he communicated with WikiLeaks and he wanted money for it, et cetera. But Seymour Hirsch, I know, got pissed off at Batowski because he didn't know that he was being recorded and by publishing that recording, he burnt his source at the FBI. So I tried to tell Batowski this that he actually heard the thing, but he didn't accept that. But the point is here, what do you make of these latest revelations and the fierce objection to even talking about this? It's tied up in what us conservatives call Trump Derangement Syndrome. The certain no-go areas, if you say anything that people are going to start screaming and putting their fingers in their ears and the two words, Seth Rich, are definitely those trigger words. So it is bewildering to think that the FBI would hold on to that laptop for all of those years. Why do they even get the laptop? As you said, for a local crime, it just doesn't make sense. Why the FBI have reams and reams and reams of documents relating to Seth Rich when he was apparently the victim of a mugging? Why did Julian Assange, why did WikiLeaks put out a cash reward for information about the death of Seth Rich? All of this points in a certain direction. I mean, there's no conclusive proof here, but it certainly begs a lot of questions, a lot of questions, that it seems not only mainstream journalists just, I wouldn't say too frightened to ask. They just don't want to ask them. They don't want to ask them whatsoever. And in fact, if anyone else asks them, they get screamed at as if they're a conspiracy theorist or a nutter. I think these are very valid questions that should have been asked, but just haven't been by the people who should be doing their job, which is the mainstream media.  This is why I love Assange, right?  I really am sick of it.  That is in no way a democratic news system. We should be privy to all sorts of information in this day and age, and we should be able to pick and choose what we want to look at, what we don't want to look at in terms of all the information that's out there. But the mainstream media filter it, and then they put their own bias on it. There's nothing you can read in any newspaper in Australia that isn't tainted with opinion and bias. And it's the same for the television news and even some of the radio news. So what's this to do with Assange? Well, when you're doing just a dump of information, some of it being redacted, yes, but when you've got just the facts out there for people to see, that is the purest, the most unbiased form of news media that you can get. And that's also why I particularly like WikiLeaks and Assange. Right. I've made the argument many times that the source really doesn't matter. It mattered politically to Trump, obviously, but to us who consume news, it doesn't really matter who gave those documents because they were true. And of course WikiLeaks has set up anonymous dropboxes that 72 major media organizations have copied. They also have dropboxes so they could be getting stuff from Russia and they wouldn't even know it. If it's true and newsworthy, it should be published. And that's what the mainstream media also follows, but not in Assange case. They have to make an issue of this by two core elements that have now been debunked of Russia. Get one by Robert Mulder and one by Sean Henry, president of Crowdstrike. One, there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. That's what Mulder concluded. And Sean Henry testified behind closed doors to the U.S. House Intelligence Committee that Sean Henry, the head of Crowdstrike, who the DNC brought in rather than the FBI to examine their service, said that there was no exfiltration. So there was no hack and there was no collision. Or conspiracy. Kathy Wogan, our executive producer, is going to jump in now. Hi, George. I'd just like to ask you about an immediate issue with Julian Assange. A few days ago, we had his partner Stella Morris come on Sky News and I think the main feature of the interview was his children who really needed their father. But at one point, Stella said that he was terribly unwell and also that he was very cold. Now, just yesterday, the Italian journalist Stefania Maurizzi tweeted out after having verified that this information was true with Belmarsh Prison. She wrote, and I'll just read that directly, four days ago, the WikiLeaks staff informed me that Julian Assange is freezing in Belmarsh. He's currently in a cell whose temperature at night is zero degrees. As a journalist, my duty is to verify information and establish what is factually correct. Hence, I contacted the UK Ministry of Justice. Second tweet, the UK Ministry of Justice did not deny that Julian Assange is freezing. They literally replied to me, quote, our priority is to limit the spread of the virus and protect lives. All prisoners at Belmarsh are able to exercise and request extra blankets. She just asks if this kind of treatment of a journalist is compatible with freedom of the press and human rights. Now, my question to you is, is there anything that can be done to get Scott Morrison and perhaps George Brandis, the Australian High Commissioner to pick up the telephone and get that man out of there? He doesn't have COVID yet. But in his block, there's about 160 people. 65 have coronavirus. And in fact, the cases of coronavirus were actually moved into his block by the prison. So now I can only speculate that they turned off the heating so as to limit the spread of contaminated air. But, you know, this is not good enough. And he could die of cold. Is there anything that you can think of? Can this be brought up in Parliament? Yeah. Well, look, I have only been aware of this in the last probably 24 hours. And I've got to say that I haven't been able to do anything on this matter as yet. But following this, I probably will have a conversation with our ambassador over there, George Brandis, about that. It probably already has come to his attention just about the issue of him being jailed. We have repeatedly, as in we, the Australian Parliament's Bring Julien Assange Home group has repeatedly raised this issue with the UK authorities. And we've continually just got back the same sort of thanks for your correspondence type of answer. I do know that back channels, diplomatic back channels, have been well and truly open on the topic of Julien Assange between Australian authorities and UK authorities. Now, I'm not privy to what those discussions have been. I would not be. I'm a politician, not a diplomat. I don't have the clearance for those sort of discussions. But the discussions have taken place. And I would hate to think that discussions haven't taken place around Julien Assange being put into home detention. So I would speculate that the UK is just simply not budging on that. And we've heard pretty much the rationale for that from the UK authorities who say they consider him a flight risk because of what he did in regards to the Ecuadorian Embassy. So I can only speculate that Australia has asked for home detention. I can tell you the Parliamentary Bring Julien Assange group has asked for that, rather than him being jailed in Belmarsh. But I can speculate that Australian diplomats have also probably asked that. Can't verify that. I'll just speculate. But that it's been knocked back because Britain considers him a flight risk. Well, one can imagine, I think it's quite likely that if he hadn't gone to the Ecuadorian Embassy, he would have been in that metal shoebox for maybe 10 years already. Yeah. Quite frankly, I mean, without, you might want to edit this out. It's up to you. But quite frankly, I can understand why he would be considered a flight risk if I was cooped up in that place for so long.  It's just a shame that actually the UK where we got our freedoms from, you know, Magna Carta, where we got all of our freedoms in terms of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, you know, the parent, the mother of democracy, as we know it. And yet in that country, he is going to, well, he could potentially be extradited for reporting on the truth.  I can jump in here for a second, George. Wu from Australia has made representations to the United Kingdom. We're talking about Maurice Payne, the Foreign Minister, and Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister. Do they have? Without a doubt. I don't have the detail. I know for a fact that the Foreign Minister has had these discussions. Now, what she's discussed, I don't know. I couldn't speculate on or couldn't comment on. I wouldn't like to start doing that because I just simply don't know. But they have been discussed. Are you concerned about, let's call it an unbalanced relationship between the United States and a country like Australia, which too often does things to against its own interests in order to please what the United States wants? Do you think that they have the ability to stand up to the US and the UK? Yeah, I do think so.  But I think that we have, as a nation, shown that we can stand up to other powers, including the United States. I think it's more of an issue of practicalities here. And this is just, this is probably where I deviate with some of my other colleagues that are in the parliamentary group that want to throw a lot of rocks at the government. The Australian government holds no levers here. The Australian government only has the ability to request stuff of others. The Australian government is not the one that's charging him with any crime. The Australian government is not the one that's seeking to extradite him. The Australian government is not the one that's holding him in a prison. The Australian government didn't give him up to UK authorities for that. Could they have done more? Should they have done more? In the lead up to all of this, you betcha. But I don't know that we can be held responsible for what the UK has done or what the US is doing. What Australia does hold chips in its relationship with the US. I'm not sure that they'd want to spend any in order to get this on job. Maybe it's not that important. Yeah, look, that may be a fair observation that, you know, in politics, is such a thing as political capital and you burn it.  I would hope not. But look, what I think, though, you will see a switch. You will see a switch if the UK rules that he should be extradited. I can tell you we've seen the story before in Australia. There was a guy by the name of David Hicks, the point in which, you know, it was quite obvious he could languish for the rest of his life in a jail cell in Gitmo. The Australian public got incensed. And I think that this will happen in this instance, too. When it becomes apparent that he's going, he's going away 175 years, no return, there will probably be an outcry. And that outcry will lead to the same result. David Hicks is back in Australia. David Hicks is a free man. They may see a scientist more dangerous than they thought Hicks was. What Assange did was report the truth. And if you're going to start arresting people for that, there's a lot of us that are going to be in jail. Well, he's exposed them. He exposed powerful people who want to stop. Now, in fact, that Australia now with the Brereton report, with the expose of war crimes by special forces, SAS forces in Afghanistan. I'm glad you said alleged, because there's a lot of angst about that here. Well, I'm just trying to be legally correct here. And I'm doing a reporter. But, you know, it's pretty clear if you read the report, these are pretty ugly things. And the ones who put together the report seem to be convinced they happened. But they're not in a courtroom yet. So that's why it's a lie. But the fact is that it may have changed the sensibilities in this country about things like war crimes. And that there is a good, we should know about these, so that they won't happen again. Would that change an attitude? How does that once Assange's case in any way? I don't know. There's too much cross-pollination between the issues. If I can just touch on that, there's a reason I said that because, yeah, while the authors of the report have gone on to say that there's credible information, they also have said in that report that there's credible information actually doesn't hold any standard of proof. And they go on to even suggest themselves that it probably won't. It may be unlikely that it actually succeeds in any criminal case. And I don't know that we should be saying that people are guilty of war crimes, unless that's absolutely and utterly proven. But I guess that the fact that we have now as a government gone and produced a report made that report public. Well, why can a government go and do that? But a private citizen can't do the same thing. Why can a government produce a report which alleges all sorts of things about its own soldiers? And we can all stand up there and beat our chests and say, look at us. We're putting all of our dirty laundry out because we believe in transparency and accountability and all the rest of it because we sent all of these soldiers off to never-ending wars. And now we've got to make them accountable for whatever they may or may not have done. But then someone goes and says, well, actually there's bad stuff that the military or the spy networks is doing in a certain country against its own citizens. And suddenly that person's facing 175 years in jail. What is the difference between these two pictures? One difference is that, as you said earlier, these were documents that are accurate, that were written by governments, by ambassadors, by diplomats. And whereas that's accurate. Whereas you're saying we're not sure whether what's in the report, the baritone report is going to be able to be actionable in the courtroom. Or is documents as accurate as the baritone report in that they are someone in government, their opinion, are put down on the piece of paper that they're purporting maybe to be the facts. So, you know, it's the same thing. It's exactly the same thing. If I may jump in, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions also stated that it was not in the public interest to prosecute a journalist for reporting on war crimes. That in the case of Dan Oakes, an ABC journalist, that adds to your case. How can it be all right for the government?  Who did the first report? And then that was followed some time later with the total defiance of the ABC with another report called Killingfield, which was a documentary. There we'd see an execution actually on camera. What looks like an execution, I should say an alleged execution. But it seems to me that if the Australian Federal Police did drop the charges against the ABC journalist and he was doing something very similar to Julian Assange, he was reporting on war crimes in Afghanistan and using classified information. So how can we still be so indifferent to Julian and just let it happen to him? You've just outlined a clear argument that if Julian Assange ever comes back to Australia and there is an extradition case in Australia, which is possible, the exact reason legally why he should not be extradited. So, you know, Director of Public Prosecutions, Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, no less, that is a serious sort of a role where you make these deliberations based on facts of law and what's in the public interest. And that Director of Public Prosecution speaks for the Commonwealth of Australia. And so that view would mean that if Britain was following the same sort of legal philosophy that the Australian Commonwealth follows, that you would not be extraditing that person. You would not be extraditing Julian Assange. Yeah. If I could just pick up on another thing you said earlier, you've mentioned the deep state and that Trump wasn't particularly fond of, President Trump, I should say. So at one point he had taken on the CIA and he had Chuck Schumer told him that that was not a wise thing to do because they have six ways till Sunday to give back at you. Now, Joe Laurier and I were present in the extradition hearing the whole month of it. What we learned there, two things, very important things about the CIA intelligence agencies, the American friends as they were called, is that UC Global were spying on Julian Assange in the embassy on his lawyers, doctors and all visitors on behalf of the American friends. And we also learned from an expert witness, Maureen Baird, she was somebody who had been responsible for administering SAMs, special administrative measures. And what was revealed was that the intelligence agencies and specifically the CIA also weighed in on whether a particular prisoner should get SAMs. So, you know, this is a stitch up, if ever, when they are gathering the evidence and spying on the defense, but also responsible in a large way for dealing out the punishment of being silenced in a very small metal shoebox, as I said, for the rest of his life. Don't you think that that's another reason why President Trump would want to, for want of a better word, I might have to edit this, stick it to them? Well, I say that he could, by doing this, it would be giving a poke in the eye to the deep state. So, yeah, we can say it would be sticking it to him. But look, it's just the things that you've outlined there, just absolutely outrageous. I mean, I don't know how any court could extradite someone knowing that all of their personal legal communications had been spied upon by the side that wants to extradite him. That is a clear signal that there would not be a fair trial, because all of the legal conversations that have gone on basically have been known about by the other side. And there is this rule of law in the UK, a rule of law supposedly in the US, supposedly in the UK, that those conversations are privileged not to be spied on, yet they were. So, how on earth could anyone have a fair trial? The second point, I mean, I don't know the intricate details of that. What I do know from the reports that I read that the lawyers sitting there in the docks at the court near Belmarsh were getting whispered to by their American friends. Now, that's bizarre. What on earth are British lawyers acting on behalf of the government doing, getting whispered instructions from Americans? I don't get it. But anyway, that's what was going on. It sort of all seems very, very bizarre to me. But getting back to Donald Trump. Yeah, look, again, I just repeat what I said at the start. I really don't think that this is Donald Trump's vendetta. And there have been some on the left. I gotta say some sadly inside the assigned legal team that have sought to draw that conclusion. I don't think it's accurate. I don't think it's accurate at all. I think that this is something that was set in train by people sconst within the US government, deep within the government, within agencies like the CIA and the State Department that went on the witch hunt under the Obama administration. And it just happened to be there was a change of administration when they decided that they've lined all their docks up. And now we can go and get in. And they did go and get in. Do I think that at any time in that whole line of things, did they go to President Trump and say, we want your permission? Not at all. That's not how it works. I think he was probably as surprised as most that it happened. And certainly we can see the surprise when media are asking him, well, why was he so supportive of Julian Assange during the 2016 election? And why was he so supportive of WikiLeaks? Well, I think that he was supportive. And I think he will be supportive again. I just think we need to encourage that by that website that I've set up, pardonjulianassange.com and getting everyone possible to go to that and to send that message to Donald Trump. Now, I'm not sure whether your viewers and the people that go to CN are people from the political left or political right, whether they're Trump deplorables or the Bernie Brothers, you know, but the pardonjulianassange.com website is decidedly conservative because I am because Donald Trump is. And so that's the kind of message that we're sending to the President. Defend the conservative values. Defend the First Amendment. Defend the Constitution.  Thank you so much George I'll pass you back to Joe. We've got viewers from both all sides, all sides of the political spectrum. Elizabeth, you had a question. Yeah, I just have one last question for you, George. And it relates to what you just said. And that is, do you think that there's a possibility that Trump could be waiting until the very last second to stick it to the deep state by pardoning Assange? Or do you think that there's a possibility because many people are speculating that he's going to run again in 2024? So do you think that he's kind of thinking, well, if I do put a stick in the hornet's nest, it's going to be too much heat against me trying to run again? Do you think that could be part of the equation too? What are your thoughts on those? Look, I mean, for someone who may be worried about what people think about him and what people say about him and potential reputational issues, it's not looking like that at the moment. I mean, Donald Trump is right now going all out to try and expose what he sees and what I frankly see as a myriad of issues with the presidential election that's just been add and gone. And all that's being met with is along with radio silence, just calls of abuse and claims of madness from the mainstream media.  So a lot of those 75 million people would be of the mindset that yep, declassify everything. Pardon as many people as possible that are just simply political, political prisoners or potential political prisoners. Let's end this nonsense because you know what? It's our government. I'm not a US citizen, but the deplorables would be saying it's our government. It's not their government. It's our government. And we want things to be as free and known as possible. And I reckon Donald Trump is going to live up to those expectations actually. It'll be very surprising. There'll be a fair few people on the left walking around scratching their head going, I don't know what to make of that now. Thank you. How did you appeal to him, George? I read your website. You said the kinds of things that he would like to hear obviously. Peppermint were a lot of Fox News videos. But did you bring up, for example, what we talked about, the spying on him and the embassy on the defense privilege conversation? Did you get into that detail? Do you think he needs to know that? Look, the open letter that you've seen written there was actually an actual letter that I've already sent to the White House through contacts. So that's there in the White House already that was sent last week. And no, I didn't go into all of those details because quite frankly, at the moment, I don't know that going into all of the details in the background is going to assist in the cause. All of that's known. What we just need now is someone to make a clear decision for free speech to someone to cut through all the nonsense and just say, what? I've got the ability to offer this clemency. I've got the ability to offer this pardon. I'm just going to do it because it aligns with my values and with my presidency. And I think that this does. That's the message I've sought. I haven't tried to flour it with words and terms that I think are going to endear my cause to Donald Trump. Actually, I'm a true believer. If I can just move my head this way, what you'll see, I can't get myself out of the picture there. What you'll see up here is a picture of Donald Trump, actually, that I have in my own house. And if I took you into my bedroom, you would see mega caps and stuff like that. So actually, I believe in his cause.  It's wrong. Of course, if he did pardon him, you know what the reaction would be of the He pardoned a Russian asset. Exactly. At that point, it wouldn't matter. Yeah. What would it matter? I mean, it would just be another lie that's just rolled out and could be rolled out on top of all of the other lies. And that's all it would be, is just a lie. There's no truth in that whatsoever. But I'm sure that's what they will say. Will Donald Trump care? No. I've said everything else about him. I mean, how long did they go on with the Russia collusion story? Yeah. So if Assange were pardoned and he comes back to health and goes back to work, and then the moment he publishes his first leak document from the Trump administration, embarrassing the former president, he might have some regrets at that point. George, I mean, one final question. Hopefully there's nothing to say. Well, I should publish it if you got it. What are the chances you think of him getting a pardon? This is the final question. Pretty good, actually. You think so? I think that one of two things is going to happen. Maybe we'll find out that early January, that the extradition request has failed in the UK. If it hasn't, I suspect that we're going to get a pardon. I'll come after January 4th. What about people on the political left from the United States like Tulsi Gabbard? She's also calling. She's great. I love Tulsi. She is fantastic. More power to her because that's going to be pretty brave in the Democrats to actually be out there calling for that given the visceral hatred that the Clinton wing has around Assange. And her. And for her. Clinton is called her Russian asset. Yeah, I bet she is. But what I'm saying is it wouldn't hurt Trump if he doesn't have much time, I think, for Tulsi Gabbard. You might, although I don't know, of course. But if some people like that, or Daniel Ellsberg is calling for his pardon, so it's not just... Yeah, well, you've got people like Senator Rand Paul, who have been pro Assange, Ron Paul, obviously his father. You've got Tom Massie, I think, who's a Republican congressman. And I'd notice Matt Gaetz today, or it might have been yesterday, Matt Gaetz is a rising star within the Republicans. Definitely a pro Trump guy. Definitely someone that Trump listens to is called for Snowden's pardon. And these two cases are very much linked. I'm not sure why you call for Snowden's pardon rather than Assange's pardon. I'm not sure what's happening there. But I would have thought that Snowden's crimes, for one of a better term, because they're not, would probably would be considered in certain circles more un-American than what Assange's alleged crimes were. There's another person who apparently still has Trump's ear, who two years ago on New Year's Eve said on a CNN broadcast that Assange should not be charged, because he didn't steal the documents, he received them and published them just like Pentagon Papers, and that was Rudolph Giuliani. Yeah, well, there you go. Rudy has certainly said that. And also, I think you'll find people like Stephen Bannon, who are influential still within the Trump circle are probably all in favour of pardoning Assange and pardoning also Snowden. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. All Assange supporters are grateful for your effort here to get them. I apologize. Thank you, Joe, Kathy, Liz, and thank you, Consortium News. Okay, this is Joe Laureate for Kathy and Elizabeth, thanking our viewers for this episode again of CNN Live, and we'll see you next time. Bye-bye.