Here is why it is confusing. In normal speech we present the argument that we believe and hope to convince. But in a court of law the lawyers present every ar

Here is why it is confusing. In normal speech we present the argument that we believe and hope to convince. But in a court of law the lawyers present every argument that might convince the judge, and leave it up to the judge to decide which to be convinced by. In this case: Defense: Assange can't be extradited under the treaty because it excludes political acts and his act was political. Prosecution: The treaty term about political acts is not enforceable in UK law... Defense: The 2003 law empowers the treaty, and the term is in the treaty so it is enforceable. Prosecution: ...and if it was enforceable it wouldn't apply because Assange's actions don't meet the definition in the treaty of a political act... Defense: His actions did meet the definition. Prosecution: ...and if it did meet the definition the treaty term still doesn't apply because the act did not take place in the USA... Defense: If you rule the act did not take place in the USA then the USA has no jurisdiction to sue in the first place and Assange can't be extradited. (And so on.) Here the defense raised 1 argument. The prosecution raised three counter-arguments. The defense has 3 responses to each. If the judge accepts any of the prosecution's counter-arguments, Assange will be extradited. To win, the defense has to win on every argument. From the tone of the blog article, it looks like the judge will rule for the prosecution on the first argument, and the blogger thinks that the judge is wrong to do so. Does that clarify?