2 ms·

That indictment is pretty interesting. It is short and pretty clear, but I'm still having trouble understanding what the indictment actually alleges he did. >

That indictment is pretty interesting. It is short and pretty clear, but I'm still having trouble understanding what the indictment actually alleges he did. > 7. On or about March 8, 2010, Assange agreed to assist Manning in cracking a password... > 25. [...] Assange indicated that he had been trying to crack the password by stating that he had "no luck so far." It seems to me that essentially the entire indictment discusses what Manning was doing. Is this all they have on Assange? I mean is the only evidence that he helped crack the password that single statement of his? He could have just said that and never done anything. I mean sure presumably there is more evidence, but this indictment seems pretty thin to me.

maxlybbert 8y ago
The indictment just has to establish enough to arrest the person. And many prosecutors work hard to make sure it contains no more than enough to meet that standard. They’ll get a chance to amend the indictment before trial.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The indictment just has to establish enough to arrest the person. The indictment doesn't actually have to do that, that's what has to be done to get to the indictment, but the indictment doesn't need to actually recapitulate the evidence that supports it, only the factual allegations that the grand jury found that the evidence supported.
  - maxlybbert 8y ago
    Thank you for the correction.
dragonwriter 8y ago
Indictments are summaries of the allegations for which the grand jury has found probable cause based on evidence. They don't need to contain any evidence themselves, as their purpose isn't to prove charges but to state them. > I mean sure presumably there is more evidence, but this indictment seems pretty thin to me. All criminal conspiracy legally needs is a agreed common purpose which is itself criminal and a concrete act by any of the participants to advance the common purpose.
- CogitoCogito 8y ago
  > All criminal conspiracy legally needs is a agreed common purpose which is itself criminal and a concrete act by any of the participants to advance the common purpose. Well I hope that they have something more concrete than him saying "no luck so far" because I read that as all of nothing. I make similar statements all the time and it need not mean I've done a thing. Even with your elucidation, it seems to me that indictment seems to working quite creatively to paint Assange as conspiring with Manning. I presume at least that the British would demand to see the evidence of the conspiracy.

maxlybbert 8y ago

The indictment just has to establish enough to arrest the person. And many prosecutors work hard to make sure it contains no more than enough to meet that standard. They’ll get a chance to amend the indictment before trial.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> The indictment just has to establish enough to arrest the person. The indictment doesn't actually have to do that, that's what has to be done to get to the indictment, but the indictment doesn't need to actually recapitulate the evidence that supports it, only the factual allegations that the grand jury found that the evidence supported.
- maxlybbert 8y ago
  Thank you for the correction.

dragonwriter 8y ago

Indictments are summaries of the allegations for which the grand jury has found probable cause based on evidence. They don't need to contain any evidence themselves, as their purpose isn't to prove charges but to state them. > I mean sure presumably there is more evidence, but this indictment seems pretty thin to me. All criminal conspiracy legally needs is a agreed common purpose which is itself criminal and a concrete act by any of the participants to advance the common purpose.

CogitoCogito 8y ago
> All criminal conspiracy legally needs is a agreed common purpose which is itself criminal and a concrete act by any of the participants to advance the common purpose. Well I hope that they have something more concrete than him saying "no luck so far" because I read that as all of nothing. I make similar statements all the time and it need not mean I've done a thing. Even with your elucidation, it seems to me that indictment seems to working quite creatively to paint Assange as conspiring with Manning. I presume at least that the British would demand to see the evidence of the conspiracy.