3 ms·

>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 goin

>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.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  This prosecution is clearly politically motivated. Previous admin chose not to indict, politics happened and new admin decided to dig it up again. That doesn't (and shouldn't!) render the criminal charges against Assange invalid. The lack of legislation regarding politically motivated prosecutions doesn't mean that we shouldn't criticize them when they happen. It is simply wrong for governments to target individuals like this. >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 Pompeo and Mattis sure love WL! The administration isn't a single person, I'm sure Trump loves Pompeo far more than he cares for WL. Besides, indicting Assange is an obvious move to discredit the Russia conspiracy theorist crowd. >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. I'm sorry, but this is just terribly lazy of you.
  - Nevermark 8y ago
    > This prosecution is clearly politically motivated. Previous admin chose not to indict, politics happened and new admin decided to dig it up again. That is not a logical statement. One administration choosing to treat a case differently than another administration can happen without bad politics. Different people see things differently. Assange's recent loss of asylum got the attention of new decision makers so the timing doesn't mean anything either. Your original and continued statements amount to: "I have no evidence but darn it I know it!" Of course bad politics could be involved. I.e. a campaign PR move, instead of making rational decisions in the countries interest. But you didn't reference any evidence. Here is some evidence: Trump doesn't seem to approach anything without overwhelming self-interest. (That argument has nothing to do with your nonsensical argument.) But that is not conclusive. Maybe someone competent made a well thought out decision (whether or not you and I agree with it).
    - 8y ago
bjtitus 8y ago
> 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. Are there other examples of suspects being granted asylum by a foreign government? It seems to me like that wouldn't be very likely in a vast majority of cases. It seems just as reasonable that DOJ needed to wait until Ecuador had dropped asylum and given the green light. It seems like a stretch to say that the timing alone proves this is politically motivated when there were extenuating circumstances preventing the indictment. If you think the political landscape or future charges have a possibility of swaying Ecuador into discontinuing their grant of asylum then this seems like a pretty reasonable course of events.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  >Are there other examples of suspects being granted asylum by a foreign government? I don't know if that matters very much. Unlike most fugitives, DOJ knew exactly where Assange is and that he'd have to come out eventually. >It seems just as reasonable that DOJ needed to wait until Ecuador had dropped asylum and given the green light. But DOJ didn't wait until Ecuador dropped the asylum. >It seems like a stretch to say that the timing alone proves this is politically motivated when there were extenuating circumstances preventing the indictment There was nothing preventing the indictment, there were circumstances that would prevent unsealing the indictment.
  - bjtitus 8y ago
    > I don't know if that matters very much. Unlike most fugitives, DOJ knew exactly where Assange is and that he'd have to come out eventually. Sure, and that's exactly what they did. By waiting for him to come out once Ecuador dropped terminated their asylum. It absolutely matters in that they would be violating Ecuadorian sovereignty by doing anything but waiting for something like this to happen. > But DOJ didn't wait until Ecuador dropped the asylum. Well that's just flat out false. Here Moreno (Ecuador's president) says: "Ecuador sovereignly has decided to terminate the diplomatic asylum granted to Mr. Assange in 2012." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHVqbKgsnDw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHVqbKgsnDw > There was nothing preventing the indictment, there were circumstances that would prevent unsealing the indictment. I get your point about filing and then unsealing but that's just mincing words. You can disagree with process but I don't think that makes it "political". I don't pretend to know why prosecutors decide when to file anything and I think you need to bring some proof that this would be improper if you are going to assert some wrongdoing here.

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.

ryanlol 8y ago
This prosecution is clearly politically motivated. Previous admin chose not to indict, politics happened and new admin decided to dig it up again. That doesn't (and shouldn't!) render the criminal charges against Assange invalid. The lack of legislation regarding politically motivated prosecutions doesn't mean that we shouldn't criticize them when they happen. It is simply wrong for governments to target individuals like this. >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 Pompeo and Mattis sure love WL! The administration isn't a single person, I'm sure Trump loves Pompeo far more than he cares for WL. Besides, indicting Assange is an obvious move to discredit the Russia conspiracy theorist crowd. >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. I'm sorry, but this is just terribly lazy of you.
- Nevermark 8y ago
  > This prosecution is clearly politically motivated. Previous admin chose not to indict, politics happened and new admin decided to dig it up again. That is not a logical statement. One administration choosing to treat a case differently than another administration can happen without bad politics. Different people see things differently. Assange's recent loss of asylum got the attention of new decision makers so the timing doesn't mean anything either. Your original and continued statements amount to: "I have no evidence but darn it I know it!" Of course bad politics could be involved. I.e. a campaign PR move, instead of making rational decisions in the countries interest. But you didn't reference any evidence. Here is some evidence: Trump doesn't seem to approach anything without overwhelming self-interest. (That argument has nothing to do with your nonsensical argument.) But that is not conclusive. Maybe someone competent made a well thought out decision (whether or not you and I agree with it).
  - 8y ago

bjtitus 8y ago

> 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. Are there other examples of suspects being granted asylum by a foreign government? It seems to me like that wouldn't be very likely in a vast majority of cases. It seems just as reasonable that DOJ needed to wait until Ecuador had dropped asylum and given the green light. It seems like a stretch to say that the timing alone proves this is politically motivated when there were extenuating circumstances preventing the indictment. If you think the political landscape or future charges have a possibility of swaying Ecuador into discontinuing their grant of asylum then this seems like a pretty reasonable course of events.

ryanlol 8y ago
>Are there other examples of suspects being granted asylum by a foreign government? I don't know if that matters very much. Unlike most fugitives, DOJ knew exactly where Assange is and that he'd have to come out eventually. >It seems just as reasonable that DOJ needed to wait until Ecuador had dropped asylum and given the green light. But DOJ didn't wait until Ecuador dropped the asylum. >It seems like a stretch to say that the timing alone proves this is politically motivated when there were extenuating circumstances preventing the indictment There was nothing preventing the indictment, there were circumstances that would prevent unsealing the indictment.
- bjtitus 8y ago
  > I don't know if that matters very much. Unlike most fugitives, DOJ knew exactly where Assange is and that he'd have to come out eventually. Sure, and that's exactly what they did. By waiting for him to come out once Ecuador dropped terminated their asylum. It absolutely matters in that they would be violating Ecuadorian sovereignty by doing anything but waiting for something like this to happen. > But DOJ didn't wait until Ecuador dropped the asylum. Well that's just flat out false. Here Moreno (Ecuador's president) says: "Ecuador sovereignly has decided to terminate the diplomatic asylum granted to Mr. Assange in 2012." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHVqbKgsnDw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHVqbKgsnDw > There was nothing preventing the indictment, there were circumstances that would prevent unsealing the indictment. I get your point about filing and then unsealing but that's just mincing words. You can disagree with process but I don't think that makes it "political". I don't pretend to know why prosecutors decide when to file anything and I think you need to bring some proof that this would be improper if you are going to assert some wrongdoing here.