,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
"The indictment against Julian Assange unsealed today was obtained a year to the day before Chelsea appeared before the grand jury and refused to give testimony. The fact that this indictment has existed for over a year underscores...
"...what Chelsea’s legal team and Chelsea herself have been saying since she was first issued a subpoena to appear in front of a Federal Grand Jury in the Eastern District of Virginia — that compelling Chelsea to testify would have been duplicative of evidence...
"...already in the possession of the grand jury, and was not needed in order for US Attorneys to obtain an indictment of Mr. Assange. Grand Juries may not be used for the sole and dominant purpose of preparing for trial, including questioning potential trial witnesses...
"Since her testimony can no longer contribute to a grand jury investigation, Chelsea’s ongoing detention can no longer be seriously alleged to constitute an attempt to coerce her testimony. As continued detention would be purely punitive, we demand Chelsea be released.”
I had a chance to speak with David Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor for the US Attys Office in Miami. Weinstein weighed in on Manafort's sentencing for me awhile back, and in an email today, he made a few noteworthy points about the timing involved here w/the Assange case.
'What sticks out is the delay in presenting the case, the fact that his maximum statutory penalty is 5 years and how it mirrors the case brought against Manning...while the general statute of limitations for most federal offenses is 5 years, the violation charged in this case..."
"...has an 8 year statute of limitations."
That time period was going to expire in March of this year, explaining why the government obtained the sealed indictment last month.
That time period was going to expire in March of this year, explaining why the government obtained the sealed indictment last month.
