On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:37:27 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:11:29 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:41:54 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 09:58:26 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
news On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 7:55:48 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical
Piece
Of Evidence

Fri, 04/12/2019 - 04:25

Assuming he is successfully extradited (legal experts say there is a
chance he might be able to successfully fight extradition, despite
the
blatant antipathy expressed toward him by British judges), Julian
Assange will stand trial in a courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia
where
prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia will try to prove
that
he broke US law by goading Chelsea Manning into turning over
hundreds
of
thousands of classified documents.

To recap: Prosecutors surprised Assange's supporters when they
revealed
in their extradition warrant that, rather than pursuing him on
espionage
charges, or charges related to Wikileaks' publication of the
classified
documents, only one charge had been levied against Assange:
conspiracy
to hack a government computer.

https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/i...10.16%20PM.png
Assange

If convicted, he could face a maximum of five and a half years in
prison.

In the Assange indictment, prosecutors claimed that after Manning
had
already handed over hundreds of thousands of documents to Wikileaks,
Assange tried to help the former Army private and intelligence
analyst
crack a password that would have allowed her to access hundreds of
thousands of documents.

However, Assange never succeeded in cracking the password, at least
not
as far as prosecutors are aware. What he did allegedly do was
conspire
with Manning to transmit the documents she had succeeded in
stealing,
while - and this is key - encouraging Manning to turn over more
documents when she expressed reluctance.

To support its case, the government has obtained chat logs from
March
2010 showing Manning communicating with a mysterious individual who
alternatively went by the handles "Ox" and "pressassociation". The
government believes this user was Assange. After transmitting
hundreds
of thousands of war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and detainee
assessment briefs from Guantanamo Bay, Manning said her stash of
secret
documents had run dry.

"After this upload, that's all I really have got left."

To which her co-conspirator replied: "Curious eyes never run dry in
my
experience."

The indictment also references a claim made by Manning during her
court
martial statement that she had discussed the value of the Guantanamo
detainee assessments with the person alleged to be Assange.



This is flat out wrong. Manning was not a "she" when conspiring with
Assange, Manning was a he. The feds may have another fun go at
Manning
related to this too. Hall him/her in front of a grand jury or force
testimony against Assange in court. If he/she lies, back to jail they
go....


Certainly there may be a perjury trap to be had there but I bet
Manning just keeps pleading the fifth or saying (s)he doesn't know. It
wouldn't break my heart to see both of them doing 20 years but that is
not in the current charge. I suppose if they do get Assange here they
can always charge more.

Not if they agree not to do that to get him extradited.

All they agreed to is no death penalty.

You don't know what they have agreed to yet because
they havent even attempted to get him extradited yet.

That was the terms the Brits are reported to have.

'reported by some fool of a journo given that the USA
hasn't even applied to have him extradited yet, let alone
agreed to any of that level of detail on conditions.

Other than the death penalty, they don't care.

That is just plain wrong.

According to the Home Office, the home secretary can
bring a limited number of factors into consideration
when deciding whether to order a person's extradition.

These include whether the person might be at risk of
the death penalty or whether the requesting state might
try to add additional charges it has not specified.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47917325

And that's the Home Office, not some pig ignorant journalist.

You are confusing what they can do and what they said they are going
to do in this particular case. I think the Brits are ready to get rid
of this asshole as fast as they can.

+1


The ironic thing is, I seriously
wonder if we can actually make any charge stick. Our journalist shield
law here is stronger than just about anywhere in the world.
Assange has been locked up in that embassy longer than his likely
sentence here. Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for
over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time
that should have been the firing squad.

She/he only did a short sentence because Obummer commuted it.