4 ms·

>Why did they not indict him before 2018? Could be they just saw no reason to bother because there was no possibility of getting him. There is no requirement t

by xoa 8y ago

>Why did they not indict him before 2018? Could be they just saw no reason to bother because there was no possibility of getting him. There is no requirement to indict someone immediately upon collecting evidence, indictment is merely the formal accusation of a felony issued by a grand jury. I don't understand why some of you seem to consider this some wild thing. Furthermore, even if they had all this evidence nobody may have sat down and come up with a legal theory sufficiently tailored, and in fact you yourself raise this in the rest of your post: >Obama DOJ had decided to not indict Assange for this, this is a politically motivated prosecution by the Trump administration. Your source does not support this leap. In fact quite the contrary: >Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper. Your quote doesn't even make sense exactly because prosecutors never "have to prosecute" anything. But that aside, what we see now is that they haven't indicted him for "publishing classified material" or anything like that, they've found a genuine potential crime (if proven) that is about direct material aid provided by Assange alone. Going after publishing would invite all sorts of 1A arguments and would probably fail unless the papers were directly involved. But unless the NYT and others were in direct contact with Manning and trying to help her break through government security themselves, this charge doesn't in any way involve them. I mean, you do see how your own accusations here are symmetric right? Someone could just as well argue that it was Obama making a politically motivated decision not to indict, though I think that'd be a silly argument too. Ask "if at some point in the last 7 years Assange had suddenly voluntarily left and returned directly to the USA and announced he was willing to face whatever they would bring, would the US have then prosecuted or not?"

ryanlol 8y ago
>Could be they just saw no reason to bother because there was no possibility of getting him. There is no requirement to indict someone immediately upon collecting evidence, indictment is merely the formal accusation of a felony issued by a grand jury. I don't understand why some of you seem to consider this some wild thing I don't think you know what you're talking about. It is quite unusual to delay indictment like this, perhaps you can find some other examples to prove me wrong? >Furthermore, even if they had all this evidence nobody may have sat down and come up with a legal theory sufficiently tailored, and in fact you yourself raise this in the rest of your post: It's the exact same legal theory they had prepared in 2011 https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/prosecutors-say-manning-and-assange-collaborated-in-stealing-secret-documents/2011/12/22/gIQARwAXCP_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/pr... >Someone could just as well argue that it was Obama making a politically motivated decision not to indict, though I think that'd be a silly argument too. There's an extreme difference between politically motivated indictment and politically motivated non-indictment. That's not silly, that's asinine.
- xoa 8y ago
  >It is quite unusual to delay indictment like this It is quite unusual for the suspect to be granted asylum and holed up in a foreign embassy for 7 years too. The entire case is unusual. You don't get to just handwave that away as convenient and appeal to regular cases where none of that comes up. You're the one making the accusations here, so how about you start citing some positive evidence in support? Cite the law or legal precedent that requires indictment in some amount of time, and discuss how that plays out with any expirations, upkeep requirements, or potential for leaks even if it's sealed (and remember with that last one that this very indictment was in fact leaked accidentally, is that more or less likely the more years it exists?). >Are you kidding? It's the exact same legal theory they had prepared in 2011 Curious then how you chose to first claim that Obama didn't prosecute because it'd necessarily mean going after the media. Can you try to keep your story straight here? >There's an extreme difference between politically motivated indictment and politically motivated non-indictment. That's not silly, that's asinine. No there isn't. That's completely absurd, if the Russian intelligence service came over to America next time around and gave someone polonium again like they did in the UK and the whole thing was captured on film, but Trump chose not to indict because it'd imperil some gas deal, are you saying that's no problem or only a minimal issue because hey, he's only "not indicting" right?
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    >It is quite unusual for the suspect to be granted asylum and holed up in a foreign embassy for 7 years too There is nothing unusual at all about suspects going into hiding. This is everyday stuff for prosecutions, and the normal thing to do is to indict and keep it sealed, not wait years to indict for funsies. > the law or legal precedent that requires indictment in some amount of time, and discuss how that plays out with any expirations, upkeep requirements, or potential for leaks even if it's sealed Why should I? I'm criticizing this indictment as politically motivated, this doesn't have all that much to with the law. >Curious then how you chose to first claim that Obama didn't prosecute because it'd necessarily mean going after the media. Can you try to keep your story straight here? That was not my claim, you're being ridiculous. That was wapo quoting DOJ officials. Can you stop trying to deliberately muddy the waters with this nonsense? You're focusing on twisting my words instead of trying to make an honest argument.

by xoa 8y ago

ryanlol 8y ago

>Could be they just saw no reason to bother because there was no possibility of getting him. There is no requirement to indict someone immediately upon collecting evidence, indictment is merely the formal accusation of a felony issued by a grand jury. I don't understand why some of you seem to consider this some wild thing I don't think you know what you're talking about. It is quite unusual to delay indictment like this, perhaps you can find some other examples to prove me wrong? >Furthermore, even if they had all this evidence nobody may have sat down and come up with a legal theory sufficiently tailored, and in fact you yourself raise this in the rest of your post: It's the exact same legal theory they had prepared in 2011 https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/prosecutors-say-manning-and-assange-collaborated-in-stealing-secret-documents/2011/12/22/gIQARwAXCP_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/pr... >Someone could just as well argue that it was Obama making a politically motivated decision not to indict, though I think that'd be a silly argument too. There's an extreme difference between politically motivated indictment and politically motivated non-indictment. That's not silly, that's asinine.

xoa 8y ago
>It is quite unusual to delay indictment like this It is quite unusual for the suspect to be granted asylum and holed up in a foreign embassy for 7 years too. The entire case is unusual. You don't get to just handwave that away as convenient and appeal to regular cases where none of that comes up. You're the one making the accusations here, so how about you start citing some positive evidence in support? Cite the law or legal precedent that requires indictment in some amount of time, and discuss how that plays out with any expirations, upkeep requirements, or potential for leaks even if it's sealed (and remember with that last one that this very indictment was in fact leaked accidentally, is that more or less likely the more years it exists?). >Are you kidding? It's the exact same legal theory they had prepared in 2011 Curious then how you chose to first claim that Obama didn't prosecute because it'd necessarily mean going after the media. Can you try to keep your story straight here? >There's an extreme difference between politically motivated indictment and politically motivated non-indictment. That's not silly, that's asinine. No there isn't. That's completely absurd, if the Russian intelligence service came over to America next time around and gave someone polonium again like they did in the UK and the whole thing was captured on film, but Trump chose not to indict because it'd imperil some gas deal, are you saying that's no problem or only a minimal issue because hey, he's only "not indicting" right?
- ryanlol 8y ago
  >It is quite unusual for the suspect to be granted asylum and holed up in a foreign embassy for 7 years too There is nothing unusual at all about suspects going into hiding. This is everyday stuff for prosecutions, and the normal thing to do is to indict and keep it sealed, not wait years to indict for funsies. > the law or legal precedent that requires indictment in some amount of time, and discuss how that plays out with any expirations, upkeep requirements, or potential for leaks even if it's sealed Why should I? I'm criticizing this indictment as politically motivated, this doesn't have all that much to with the law. >Curious then how you chose to first claim that Obama didn't prosecute because it'd necessarily mean going after the media. Can you try to keep your story straight here? That was not my claim, you're being ridiculous. That was wapo quoting DOJ officials. Can you stop trying to deliberately muddy the waters with this nonsense? You're focusing on twisting my words instead of trying to make an honest argument.