421–430 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He wasn't in the UK.
He was before he ran to the embassy, skipping bail, on the pretext that if the UK extradited him to Sweden, Sweden would extradite him to the U.S. That's an invalid pretext.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Resist this attempt by the Trump administration" Funny. Trump has said he loves WikiLeaks, and likely has no interest in Assange getting extradited to the US.
Problem is, Trump says a lot of things that he doesn't mean. Or he forgets, it's a little unclear. But the American intelligence community appears very interested in the guy and is known to have been working on extradition process in 2018. If the American intelligence community wants to extradite Assange, I don't doubt somebody high-ranking in the CIA will sit down with the president and by the end of the meeting, ha…
Unlikely, as it could play a big role in the whole ongoing public debate about the Trump-Russia connection.
> But the American intelligence community appears very interested in the guy and is known to have been working on extradition process in 2018.
Yep, but "Trump administration" seems to suggest that Trump is directing this, which seems comical to me.
That's a rather sanitized picture that the British establishment mouthpiece (that's BBC News to you) has on its article. Doesn't BBC news have reporters on scene in London to give us the pretty picture to go with the articles?
It will be interesting to see if the US tries to extradite him. It's actually not 100% clear that he's broken any US laws in any ways that they aren't also routinely broken by newspapers. There's a few avenues: 1) Publishing classified information. Easy to show that he did this but a very difficult path to go down when American newspapers do this all the time. 2) Conspiracy to commit espionage. Probably the most like…
There is a sealed indictment against him in EDVA which was accidentally released. He has been most certainly accused of breaking United States laws. Edit: To indict someone, the government has to show the grand jury that there is sufficient evidence. It is very easy to indict someone (hence the phrase “A ham sandwich can be indicted by the grand jury”) but one has to acknowledge the fact that the federal government h…
One argument is obviously that grand juries are pushovers and indeed would literally indict a ham sandwich.
The other argument, hinted above, is that prosecutors only move to indict if they think they have a chance to win at trial. Since the evidentiary standards are much higher for conviction, that means they easily clear the requirements for the grand jury indictment the vast majority of the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> It was already quite disgusting how powerful entities were able to seemingly fabricate sexual charges as needed. The sexual charges really don't look fabricated or to have had any political motive at all. The wikipedia article on the allegations ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Swedish_sexual_... ) makes it clear that the charges were dropped after Assange was initially questioned by the police, then…
> From my reading anyway, Assange crossed a line, perhaps not realising that what he was doing To me, this points to the fact that there are likely many transgressions of all kinds that each person in the civilized world commits. Those are unlikely to lead to anything beyond an occasional minor fine, but the government prosecutors can use those as ammunition for future cases totally unrelated to original offense. Thi…
Very sad day. Remember this all started with the leak of the "Collateral murder" video. That's when the Interpol notice went out, and he had to seek asylum at the embassy. It was already quite disgusting how powerful entities were able to seemingly fabricate sexual charges as needed. Later on he made very influential enemies by exposing corruption in the democratic political party. Instead of any follow up on that fr…
The idolization of this guy on web forums is like the college kids of the 90s wearing Che Guevara T-shirt’s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as we know, there is no extradition case in place.
Reload the page
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it was, WikiLeaks would have leaked the details by now.
I doubt anybody involved in targeting and suppressing Wikileaks post-2016 is leaking their plans to Wikileaks itself.
Very sad day. Remember this all started with the leak of the "Collateral murder" video. That's when the Interpol notice went out, and he had to seek asylum at the embassy. It was already quite disgusting how powerful entities were able to seemingly fabricate sexual charges as needed. Later on he made very influential enemies by exposing corruption in the democratic political party. Instead of any follow up on that fr…