,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Big but not surprising.
Per my past threads re: Assange, Ecuador’s new president was looking for a politically palatable way to rid himself of his inherited tenant.
The U.S. waiting until Assange was in Brit. custody to up the charges made sense.
washingtonpost.com/local/legal-is…
Per my past threads re: Assange, Ecuador’s new president was looking for a politically palatable way to rid himself of his inherited tenant.
The U.S. waiting until Assange was in Brit. custody to up the charges made sense.
washingtonpost.com/local/legal-is…
What appears to have been right about this thread:
The general plot. Assange turned over to face extradition based on one charge; new indictments added.
What was wrong: indictments or planned indictments, by treaty, have to be disclosed pre-extradition.
The general plot. Assange turned over to face extradition based on one charge; new indictments added.
What was wrong: indictments or planned indictments, by treaty, have to be disclosed pre-extradition.
Meaning, I was sloppy in suggesting the U.S. could ship Assange stateside then add indictments.
The extraditing country, the UK, requires knowledge of all planned charges before agreeing to extradition.
So, the process had to happen this way. Indictments added b4 extradition.
The extraditing country, the UK, requires knowledge of all planned charges before agreeing to extradition.
So, the process had to happen this way. Indictments added b4 extradition.
The gen’l plot remains the same:
1) Ecuador wanted to boot Assange out
2) The US made that politically easier by having filed only one charge
3) US prosecutors then pulled the trigger on charges that were largely ready to present to a grand jury on demand
4) Assange is effed
1) Ecuador wanted to boot Assange out
2) The US made that politically easier by having filed only one charge
3) US prosecutors then pulled the trigger on charges that were largely ready to present to a grand jury on demand
4) Assange is effed
