3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    >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." The indictment predates your video by many months. >I get your point about filing and then unsealing but that's just mincing words. Why was Assange not indicted before 2018 if the indictment wasn’t politically motivated? During Obama admin DOJ officials said that they did not want to charge Assange for this, the elections suddenly changed this.

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.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  >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." The indictment predates your video by many months. >I get your point about filing and then unsealing but that's just mincing words. Why was Assange not indicted before 2018 if the indictment wasn’t politically motivated? During Obama admin DOJ officials said that they did not want to charge Assange for this, the elections suddenly changed this.