4 ms·

>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 collecti

>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.
  - xoa 8y ago
    >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. FWIW the feeling is mutual, I see you as doing exactly that to me. Which maybe means we're kind of talking past each other. I don't really want to endlessly go down that rabbit hole because I don't even think you're necessarily wrong to be upset. But I also think your original post failed to make a quality argument, was very low content for a big claim, that "politically motivated" gets tossed around way too lightly (and is a weak argument regardless) and the reasoning you gave is particularly non-sensical (normally such an argument would talk about the motivations of the Administration or prosecutors, although inconveniently for that this Administration has tons of on the record statements about loving Wikileaks). It's also irritating how you have then tried to flip the standard of evidence when it was you who made the accusation. Next time, maybe in your original post tell us what the law and history is around indictments as you understand/have researched it, why this one stands out (not your feelings, actual numbers), why this particular incident of "politics" was wrong if that's what it was (since it was international of course it had to involve "politics" but that's a broader brush then you implied), etc. Putting that all out upfront saves everyone a lot of time trying to endlessly nail down basics down-thread.

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.
- xoa 8y ago
  >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. FWIW the feeling is mutual, I see you as doing exactly that to me. Which maybe means we're kind of talking past each other. I don't really want to endlessly go down that rabbit hole because I don't even think you're necessarily wrong to be upset. But I also think your original post failed to make a quality argument, was very low content for a big claim, that "politically motivated" gets tossed around way too lightly (and is a weak argument regardless) and the reasoning you gave is particularly non-sensical (normally such an argument would talk about the motivations of the Administration or prosecutors, although inconveniently for that this Administration has tons of on the record statements about loving Wikileaks). It's also irritating how you have then tried to flip the standard of evidence when it was you who made the accusation. Next time, maybe in your original post tell us what the law and history is around indictments as you understand/have researched it, why this one stands out (not your feelings, actual numbers), why this particular incident of "politics" was wrong if that's what it was (since it was international of course it had to involve "politics" but that's a broader brush then you implied), etc. Putting that all out upfront saves everyone a lot of time trying to endlessly nail down basics down-thread.