On his show Live on the Fly: Countdown to Freedom, Randy Credico interviews Nils Melzer, U.N. special rapporteur on torture, about Julian Assange in light of the Yahoo! story on CIA plans to kidnap or kill the WikiLeaks publisher.
Transcript below. Video 42 minutes 55 seconds.
On Sept. 26, Yahoo! News published “”Kidnapping, assassination and a London shoot-out: Inside the CIA’s secret war plans against WikiLeaks.” written by Zach Dorfman, Sean D. Naylor and Michael Isikoff. [Yahoo News]
This interview looks at key points from that article, relating them to Professor Melzer’s extensive knowledge of the “persecution, not prosecution, of Assange”.
Nils Melzer in 2016 was appointed as the Special Rapporteur on Torture for the United Nations. In 2019 he assessed that Julian Assange showed all signs of being a victim of psychological torture. Shortly after Melzer started his investigation, Assange was removed from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and transferred to Belmarsh prison where he remains to this day awaiting extradition to the United States.
Nils Melzer’s latest book Der Fall Julian Assange [The Case of Julian Assange] (German edition) [Amazon] English edition available on Feb. 22, 2022.
Randy Credico started his “Live on the Fly: Assange Countdown to Freedom” series on 6 Jan 2020. This interview, Episode 5 of Season 6, is part of his ongoing commitment Freedom of Speech, Freedom of The Press, and the (yet to be achieved) freedom of Julian Assange. [See also his website]
00:30 Randy Credico
That was Anton Karas, The Third Man. I am Randy Credico, live here today with an unscheduled but important Assange: Countdown to Freedom episode that we just decided to do today because of the bombshell story in Yahoo News about the CIA’s plan to either kidnap or assassinate Julian Assange.
We interviewed Dr Nils Melzer, Professor Nils Melzer, the Special Rapporteur on Torture at the U.N. on Saturday, and the next day the story came out. We were actually going to that interview with Dr Melzer on Sunday and wait for that article to come out, but we didn’t. That is the one that aired today on Progressive Radio Network. So we are going to get right into it.
01:31 Randy Credico
So, Nils Melzer, Professor Melzer, what do you prefer to be called, if I may ask? Dr Melzer?
01:39 Nils Melzer
Absolutely, That’s fine.
01:40 Randy Credico
Okay, Dr Melzer, thank you very much. As you know, we knew this was coming out yesterday but we didn’t know what the gist of the story was. You finally, I know, have read it. It is a long piece; you could put a War and Peace jacket around it. Give us your initial response to it. Let’s talk about the response by other organisations, and then your own personal response, in any order.
02:12 Nils Melzer
Well thank you for having me on the show again. Well, I can’t really speak for other organisations. Clearly, what I think is very positive is that we see that the story has been picked up by big news organisations. Yahoo News obviously has published it; CNN has also picked up the story, and rightly so because it is an extremely important story.
Now, to me this has not come as a surprise. As you know, I have been investigating this case for more than two years and I have written a book about it. I have intervened several times officially with states because I have come to the conclusion that there has been extensive collusion between intelligence services of various democratic states, including the United States, United Kingdom, Sweden and Ecuador, in order to not prosecute Assange, but actually persecute him.
So, and when I say that it is about persecution not prosecution, I mean that prosecution is here formally being used, but for ulterior motives – not in order to enforce the law but for political purposes, and therefore it is actually a persecution.
So what these revelations really confirm are the findings that I have already voiced several times: that this case is not about Assange having committed any crimes and having to face justice, but this is really a political persecution case where intelligence services are pursuing illegitimate interests of secrecy and of impunity, and that is what they feel is threatened.
The revelations of WikiLeaks that Assange obviously has sponsored in 2010 and afterwards … starting in 2010 with huge revelations about Afghanistan and on the Iraq Wars; then the diplomatic cables [Cablegate]; then the Vault 7 revelations on the hacking activities of the CIA in 2017 – which seems to have triggered those plans to either kidnap or assassinate Assange.
This is not because Assange has committed any crime. This is investigative journalism. So clearly what the States are trying to do here is
- to suppress the methodology of WikiLeaks;
- to pursue a person because he has embarrassed the CIA, the United States; because they fear that this approach will serve as an example to others – that others may also launch leaking platforms and follow the example of Julian Assange, so therefore he had to be destroyed at all costs.
So what we really see in this this article is that this is not a state trying to prosecute someone by using regular legislation and the procedures that any society governed by the rule of law provides for these purposes, but they are actually trying to neutralise what they perceive as a threat to their essential interests through illegal means – like kidnapping, rendition, assassination. So that clearly is what we see here and what we have received now is confirmation that that indeed is a case of political persecution and nothing else.
06:15 Randy Credico
Listen, you told me yesterday that there is nothing here that surprised you when you heard about the story and you read the gist of the story that was out there – there was nothing in there. Now we are going back to 2017. You mentioned Vault 7. Vault 7 seems to be the flashpoint here that really angered, infuriated – not just Pompeo but many members of the CIA – and so that is when they began to retaliate. Had you already figured that out? I think that people figured out that that was what triggered the stepping up of the spying and the designation [of WikiLeaks] as a hostile state intelligence agency. Your thoughts?
07:04 Nils Melzer
There have been several factors that may have contributed to this. Earlier, during the evidential hearings in London, the extradition trial of Assange, there were other factors that were also voiced. For example, that President Trump – apparently through his representative Dana Rohrabache
A deal which, according to his lawyer Jennifer Robinson, who was present at the meeting – she served as a witness in that hearing – so she confirmed that that deal was offered, and that was turned down by Assange, who refused to disclose his sources. As any investigative journalist would refuse to do. And so, it was initially thought that this might have angered President Trump, that Trump had then triggered those measures that then ultimately lead to his expulsion from the Embassy.
But it absolutely makes sense that we also see, in the bigger picture, that obviously 2017 – that is the year when that deal was offered – 2017 was also the year when Vault 7 was published, and therefore which exposed probably the biggest data leak in the history of the CIA, exposed the CIA’s hacking activities world-wide and really deeply embarrassed the Agency, because it also proved that it was not capable of keeping its operations and methodology secret. And that was obviously perceived as a massive threat by the CIA.
Now, I think it is very, very important though that we always underline here that what Julian Assange has done is not a crime. He has done what investigative journalists throughout the world, and throughout the U.S., do all the time. He has obtained … he has not hacked this information; he has obtained it, and then decided to publish it because it was of public interest.
Please Support CN’s Fall Fund Drive!
So, this is investigative journalism. This is what the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects. This is what the Human Rights Freedom of Expression [UDHR Article 19] protects, and so if the CIA doesn’t like it – which I can understand – well then, they have to protect their data better. But it is not a crime for a journalist to publish this information – and certainly not when that information is of public interest, and also points to misconduct of the state – then it is actually a very important function of the fourth estate, the press, to do that.
10:18 Randy Credico
Well, you know – Vault 7. He is not being charged with Vault 7. He is being retaliated against for putting out Vault 7 which he – legally, is his responsibility and his right to put it out as a journalist. That goes out there, it angers the CIA and Pompeo – who just got the gig as the CIA Chief – and so now they are looking for another reason. They are going to rendition him. They don’t know what to do if they rendition him because there are no charges filed against him. What do you think they would have done against him if they actually had gone through and got the OK to rendition him? What would they have done with him at that point?
11:05 Nils Melzer
Well, what we can see is that they were prepared to do just about anything to him. And what is really important is that when you read this article carefully we can see that, as you rightly point out, no charges were there. There was no indictment ready to prosecute him, because obviously … which is understandable because he had not committed a crime. The Obama Administration had investigated the matter for a long time and had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to indict him because of freedom of the press protections.
So now what we see is that he has obtained this information that was of public interest about the CIA, the Vault 7 documents, and has disclosed them, and has published them. And so now the CIA wants to take revenge, basically, for this, and to intimidate other journalists because they don’t want journalists to be interested in their business and to start publishing secret information of the CIA.
So… but the methods. It is very important … They don’t consider him having committed a crime and now they want to prosecute him, and to extradite him, which would be the methods or the procedures to be used by a state government by the rule of law. But they are basically planning to take revenge through kidnapping, rendition and assassination. Three options, all of which are absolutely, clearly unlawful, if not criminal.
So if a state agency – as a first measure of resort – plans for basically criminal activities in order to enforce its policies, and then asks the Justice Department to come up with some charges against Assange so – once they have renditioned him and kidnapped him and brought over to the U.S., they can charge him with something – it proves that this is not about the law, but that the law – as I indicated in the beginning – is instrumentalised for ulterior purposes. That really is something that you will see in authoritarian states, in dictatorships. That is what dictatorships do.
13:35 Randy Credico
So, they figure out they want to get even with him. Now they have got to come up with a reason to get even with him ….
13:41 Nils Melzer
13:43 Randy Credico
… by some legal means. So they drum up … they concoct some kind of Espionage Act charge against Assange, a foreigner who never committed espionage.
So that is when it steps up. They start planning the prosecution because if they are going to do this, if they are going to grab him they have got to have a ….. this is what’s pointed out in Yahoo News … But I know you have already known about this. I will get back to that in a second. Before I forget, you interviewed him back in April of 2019 [actually 9 May 2019 in HMP Belmarsh]. I think he was well aware that there were assassination plans on him and that had to weigh heavy on his psyche.
Would you agree with that?
14:30 Nils Melzer
Oh sure. There have been death threats since 2010, especially emanating from the United States. You know various politicians, public figures who suggested that he should be assassinated, that he should be droned. Even Hilary Clinton is alleged to have asked “Can’t we just drone this guy?” She then later denied that, but it just shows that the general atmosphere, the general perception, was that this man should be assassinated, should be killed. That is really very worrying, when a state that has all the legal procedures at its disposal, doesn’t consider that really, but considers means and measures that are more typical for a criminal organisation than for a democratic state.
15.25 Randy Credico
Look, we have the spying revelations; we have the stuff that you pointed out in your book The Trial of Julian Assange; you pointed out thoroughly about the FOIA stuff that Stefania [Maurizi] was talking about the other day [Part 1 & Part 2]– how they kept this thing artificially alive… and I am not saying charges, the phony investigation to keep him in this jam, in this nowhere, Bermuda Triangle-like land. So this is happening to Julian Assange at this time. What will this do ….. This new … They didn’t seem to have any effect on the prosecution on the hearing here in London, the extradition hearing at all. Will this, in your estimation, have any impact on what happens on October 27th and 28th?
16:20 Nils Melzer
Well, I hope it will. It’s about time for the U.S. authorities to recognise that they don’t really have any respectable case against Julian Assange and they should drop the case. Now, if you look at the history of this, unfortunately I’m not very optimistic. That is just because – whether you go back to the Swedish allegations which were artificially maintained by the Swedish authorities and were taken also, by the U.S. and by the UK, as a welcome excuse to corner Assange in that Embassy. As soon as Julian Assange was arrested in April 2019 and he was actually at the disposal of the Swedish authorities, they decided basically to drop the case because they didn’t have any evidence, and they didn’t have any evidence from the beginning.
They [Sweden] had, from the beginning, instrumentalised this proceeding for different purposes and had basically mislead the public that this was about rape and sexual abuse. It wasn’t. It was about persecuting him. And you can see that this is just another puzzle piece fitting directly into the overall picture of states colluding together in a kind of concerted effort to persecute and corner and demonise a man who they perceive as threat, not because of anything criminal that he has done, because of the crimes that they have committed and he has exposed.
That is the issue here. That we see people who have committed serious crimes, who were state representatives – and we’re talking about torture, we’re talking about murder, we’re talking about illegal aggression of states, we’re talking about grave corruption – all of this is being exposed by WikiLeaks and now the culprits don’t like that, obviously, and they use and abuse the legal system to portray Assange as the scapegoat, as the problem.
They identify all kinds of accusations: he is a spy, he is a traitor, he is rapist, but every single time when they are supposed to bring the actual evidence for it, they change the narrative.
How many times has the indictment changed? It took them 10 years to come up with an indictment. They came up with an indictment in 2018 and then they changed it in 2019 and they changed it again in 2020, and they move the goalposts all the time.
[See document links above at 13:43]
Every single time when they are supposed to actually bring the evidence they start moving the goalposts and manipulating the procedures and the evidence. That is really the pattern we see and that is a typical pattern of show trials where you are basically abusing the legal system for the purposes of persecution.
The big value of this revelation [ie the Yahoo News report] is that it is a big, huge puzzle piece that confirms all of those suspicions that we have had so far, and fits neatly into the picture of persecution and contradicts any narrative of good faith prosecution by those states. It clearly proves that this is a bad faith proceeding against Assange. That this is not about the law. It is about intimidating journalism. It is about suppressing press freedom. It is about protecting impunity for state officials. And that really is something we have to fight against.
When I say we, I say everybody: United Nations, Human Rights organisations, media organisations, the mainstream media. I am very grateful they have taken this up because now it has really become impossible to ignore, and I would encourage journalists from all media outlets to look deeply into this case, assemble all the evidence and expose this misconduct because the public deserves to know the truth.
20.56 Randy Credico
Well I think maybe they are more likely at this point to come out. I want to ask you what was the motivation of the, in your estimation, I know what they say, of the 30 CIA either lawyers or ex-Agents who were actual sources for this and confirmed everything that Yahoo News presented in their story yesterday?
21:20 Nils Melzer
Well I can’t really speak about individual motivations of other people. But I think … I am very grateful that some of the officials have shown the integrity to basically inform the media, and through this the public, about the misconduct of the authorities that they were working for. That is not betraying the trust of those authorities because that is the duty of any official in any democratic country. When you see that your authorities are engaging in illegal activities – and assassinations and kidnapping and rendition clearly are crimes – then this deserves to be exposed.
Any country, any country may have security concerns that are legitimate, they may have an intelligence service that serves them with integrity, but these types of services do not assassinate, they do not kidnap, they do not engage in illegal activities and so I think that is extremely important.
22.27 Randy Credico
Isn’t the Biden Administration’s position, at this point, untenable? The fact that you go back, Obama, and Biden was the Vice-President, said there is no way we can do this. And then the Trump [Administration] decides to do it based on the fact that they are embarrassed, not because he committed a crime. Because they are embarrassed. So, they put it out there. The [UK] judge says, alright we are not sending him back, that is the ruling. But the Biden Administration, that was once part of the Obama Administration, decides to appeal it. At this point, don’t you think they have an exit … they’ve got a reason to exit, because the position now is so untenable.
23:14 Nils Melzer
Well, I think if the Biden Administration wants to distinguish itself from the Trump Administration, the only option they have is to drop this case. If they maintain .. continue to maintain. I can understand, to some extent, that the decision to appeal this case was still taken by the previous Administration. And that some of the officials of the previous Administration were still serving, and were responsible for this case, and were following instructions that came from the previous Administration – in January or February this year. So, the decision to appeal was basically still taken by the previous Administration.
And I understand that the incoming Administration had other business to do than start correcting all kinds of procedural decisions in individual cases like this. So I can understand, to some extent, that this procedure has been drawn out and maintained, initially, by the Biden Administration.
But now, with these revelations, and these are not the only ones … let me just remind you of the revelations just a few weeks ago about this important witness of the prosecution, who is called ‘Teenager’ in the indictment of 2020. An Icelandic witness who came out saying he had basically committed perjury – providing false evidence upon encouragement of the FBI in return for a non-prosecution agreement for himself – but he admitted that the evidence he had given against Assange was false. So, we have that.
It clearly shows the whole indictment, the second superseding indictment of 2020, is based on facts that have been invented by, in large part, an important witness. And it actually shines a light on the methods that the authorities, under the Trump Administration, were prepared to use to persecute Assange. This really needs to be investigated. Because probably, or it is at least reasonable to assume, that if one of those witnesses was encouraged to provide false evidence and then came out publicly with it, then there may be other witnesses who were put under pressure as well.
Now we see that the methods that the CIA considered, under the Trump Administration, were blatantly unlawful – from assassination, kidnapping and rendition. So, all of this shows that this case has been prosecuted, has been based on manipulated evidence, has been prosecuted through methods and options considered that were clearly crimes. This whole case, really from a legal perspective, doesn’t have a valid basis.
You can’t extradite someone for espionage, which is a quintessential political crime, when you have an Extradition Treaty between the U.S. and the UK which prohibits extradition for political offences. You can’t extradite someone because what he has done is not punishable in the U.S. nor in the UK. Press freedom protections apply. He can’t be extradited because we also know that U.S. Intelligence Agencies have had a security firm that guarded the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, UC Global, secretly behind the backs of the Ecuadorian authorities, collaborated with U.S. Intelligence Agencies and surveilled Assange 24/7 in his refuge in the Embassy; including basically recorded his confidential conversations with medical doctors, with lawyers, and all of this irreparably renders arbitrary that entire proceeding. So, I could go on and on and on.
There is simply so many defects in this proceeding, and now we even have plans revealed – of the previous U.S. Administration – to assassinate or kidnap Assange. We are not even talking any more about extraditing. It really is outrageous to think that all of this should happen in a single case in a democratic country governed by the rule of law. No judge in his right mind could ever allow such a proceeding to go forward. So, therefore there is really no point in pursuing this case and it should be dropped now. So that is the legal answer to this. Whether the Biden Administration has the political wisdom to see also the opportunity of this moment to have a face-saving exit. That is a different question.
28:31 Randy Credico
Yes, I have just a few more questions. We are talking to Professor Nils Melzer, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture and also a Professor at the University of Glasgow and he is the Chair at Human Rights at Geneva – I believe that’s right, I have no notes in front of me. This is really off the top of my head right now. We concocted this interview just an hour ago.
The embarrassment that the CIA underwent when Vault 7 came out …. But this right now, this scandal is even more embarrassing, it seems to me. This is a real eye sore, a black eye for the CIA. Do you agree with that?
29:26 Nils Melzer
Oh, absolutely. Absolutely, but I think it is just about time that the public realises that this has to be put to an end. We can’t have Secret Intelligence Agencies basically operating outside the rule of law. What we can see in this process is really that, yes the CIA has been exposed, and it tries to suppress the truth through illegal methods, and the question is, at some point, some point, we really have to draw a line and say there has to be consequences.
If we still consider ourselves democracies governed by the rule of law, we just cannot tolerate this type of behaviour. Any state may have legitimate interests to protect the National Security interest and other interests, political interests, but they have to pursue those interests within the rule of law. If we allow impunity for serious crimes like this, then we essentially no longer live in a democracy – we essentially live in a tyranny. This is just not something the public in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world would want to see.
30:51 Randy Credico
I think a lot of this is going to come out in your book. It’s out right now. I know that it’s in several languages, but it is coming out in English February 22nd, by Verso. We hope Julian Assange is out by then.
Another thing I want to ask you … Don’t you think that they’ve relied on this smear / characterisation assassination of Julian Assange – a character assassination of Julian Assange. Do you think… So, the public has become, by and large, apathetic to his plight. Do you think now that we have the mainstream media out there digging in and exposing what the motivation was to make the character assassination, do you think that will draw more people into the cause and make Julian more of a sympathetic character?
31:42 Nils Melzer
I hope so. I hope so. But I would really encourage people not to think about whether Assange is a sympathetic character or not, because this case is not about Assange. If you asked Julian Assange he would tell you exactly that, it’s not about him. This is about the other side of the equation.
Donate to CN’s Fall Fund Drive!
Julian Assange has become a public figure because of what he has done. He has exposed misconduct of very grave character, by the United States. And not only by the U.S. and its allies, but also by Russia and also by Saudi Arabia and Turkey and all those other countries. Sometimes Julian Assange has been portrayed as being an enemy of the U.S. or something like that. That’s not true. If you look at the publications of this organisation WikiLeaks you will see that whenever they receive reliable information of public interest they will publish that. It doesn’t matter whether it is the U.S. or a different country. What matters to them is the public interest of the information.
But I am not here to defend WikiLeaks. Again, I think we should not think in those terms – in as much as “Is Assange a good guy or a bad guy?”. What is important is, does he receive a fair proceeding according to the rule of law. Anybody, whether it is Assange, whether it is you, whether it is me, whether it is the President of the U.S., anyone can be accused of misconduct and need to confront, face the law, in a proceeding that is governed by the rule of law. That is due process. Does he receive that?
And when you look at the Assange case – they are planning his assassination, they are planning his kidnapping. They accuse him of sexual misconduct but don’t allow him to basically participate in that proceeding. Instrumentalise all of those things, launched this defamation campaign, they surveil him secretly. They overhear his conversations with lawyers and doctors. But, you know, whenever he actually wants to avail himself of the protection of the law then he is being betrayed by those authorities.
We always hear those stories about how Julian Assange should face justice. I agree, but you know he is not facing justice he is facing injustice. Had he faced justice, he would be out and a free man a long time ago.
34:26 Randy Credico
Eleven years ago. This should have never happened. This should have never happened. They have taken away 10 years of his life. They have separated him from his partner and his two children at a very critical age. His kids don’t get to see him. So a lot of people are being punished by this persecution. And that is exactly what it is, it’s a persecution. It is not a prosecution as you have said repeatedly, Nils Melzer.
I am going to give you a … give us a take away. The biggest take away from the Yahoo News bombshell story, and then I am going to ask you to give us your closing thoughts. But the biggest take away from the Yahoo News story first.
35:09 Nils Melzer
If your Government pursues its interests according to the rule of law, everything is fine. But when your Government wants to use assassination and kidnapping and these types of methods to pursue its interests, then it really behaves like a criminal organisation and that is simply not acceptable.
I think here we really have to encourage people to face the facts in this case. The facts really are that there is nothing that you can accuse Julian Assange of that is a serious crime. He has, you know … Some of these things may be controversial – you know, those leaking platforms. You know, I can understand it, there may be legitimate interests that have to be protected, and so on. But all of this can be discussed in a civilised manner; it can’t be regulated. And there is a consequence of the fact that mainstream media, in some aspects, has ignored information that has been brought to light by an organisation like WikiLeaks in the public interest.
The main takeaway here is that, really, what we see is – that those governments that are after Julian Assange, the methods that they are considering, that they are employing, disprove any notion of a good faith effort to enforce the law. It is clear proof and evidence that this proceeding against Julian Assange is illegal. It pursues an illegal purpose of intimidating journalism. It employs illegal means, and therefore it is not sustainable under the rule of law. This is what I have been saying all along.
The question really is not whether Julian Assange is a perfect person or whether he has made mistakes or not. The question really is how do the states behave? That is why this case is so important. It concerns all of us. If our authorities are allowed to kill and kidnap and torture people, and invade other countries without a legal basis, without a ….. without being subject to accountability under the rule of law, then we have crossed the line into a form of government that is no longer anything to do with democracy.
This really, that is what is so dramatic about this case. It is a precedent for this type of governance – that is incompatible with the rule of law and with democracy. If any evidence was needed, since yesterday we have it. Finally, definitely.
It puts an end to any of those discussions that perhaps this really is about prosecuting Julian Assange for crimes he has committed. No, he is being prosecuted and persecuted for the crimes that have been committed by others. We are talking here about the governments because they want to protect themselves and provide themselves with impunity.
38:53 Randy Credico
Wow, well I think you answered. You gave us a takeaway and if you have anything else to add, if you have some kind of closing … I think you just gave it, but if there is anything else, do it now before we go out with this wonderful tune called “I gave it all” by Nils Melzer.
39:13 Nils Melzer
I think that every single one of us, in whatever function we are, whether we are in an official function like me working for the United Nations, whether you are a journalist working for a media organisation, whether you are an ordinary citizen, this is about your future, about your life, about your right to know what your government is doing with the power and the tax money that you have given to your government. And what the governments are trying to do is criminalise the truth. As I always say, once it has become a crime to tell the truth, we all live in a tyranny. This is really my bottom line. I do not want to leave to my children a world where it has become a crime to tell the truth.
40:17 Randy Credico
Wow, well that’s it. Very well said. Professor Nils Melzer, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture at the U.N., that’s part of the title, and he’s got a great book coming out, it is already out. You can get it, if you speak German you can get it there, it sold out immediately and it is coming out February 22nd – The Trial of Julian Assange and basically its the persecution of Julian Assange. It will be out February 22nd by Verso. Hopefully Julian will be out and he will be able to read it himself.
Professor Melzer it is always a pleasure to talk to you. You have enlightened me and you have enlightened people out there. You are a Godsend to this movement and I wish you luck. I just want to play you out here. When we interviewed you the other day, we played part of “I Gave It All”. We are going to play the full 3 minutes of it right now and I’m looking forward to hearing it. Thank you, Mr Melzer, Dr Melzer, Professor Melzer, and continue the great work. You are a tireless fighter for justice.
I am Randy Credico, Live On The Fly. Here is “I Gave It All” by Nils Melzer.
41:38 Music (Written and played by Nils Melzer) with slideshow.
[Transcript by LaFleur Productions @LaFleurDelSur.]
Please Support CN’s
Fall Fund Drive!