5 ms·

My understanding is that that narrative was true at the beginning. He only skipped bail when his legal challenge against extradition to Sweden failed. Some yea

My understanding is that that narrative was true at the beginning. He only skipped bail when his legal challenge against extradition to Sweden failed. Some years later, the US secretly submitted an extradition request. At that point he was also avoiding extradition to the USA and at that point, people were wrong to say he was only avoiding extradition to Sweden. If anyone has evidence that the US was seeking his extradition in early 2011, I would be very interested in seeing it.

jooize 6y ago
Would USA have had to request extradition before he reached Sweden? I would guess not. Makes sense they would not reveal that intention before, if possible. You say they secretly submitted such request, and I don't know what that fully means, but how would there be evidence if it is secret? I mean, can we know there wasn't a secret request in play, or one intended to be issued? Their later actual (even secret? Leaked?) request certainly validates the concern, no?
- ChrisKnott 6y ago
  In the linked article, Assange's own witness says that the Obama DoJ decided against prosecuting him. > "He said that credible sources had stated the Obama administration had decided not to prosecute Assange, notably Matthew Miller, a highly respected Justice Department figure who had been close to Attorney General Holder and would have been unlikely to brief the media without Holder’s knowledge and approval." I have never seen any evidence contradicting this, despite lots of people on the internet saying the Sweden EAW was part of a US conspiracy.
radu_floricica 6y ago
That's a very weak argument. It's basically based on if there was a secret extradition request, or the intention of having one filed when the opportunity presented itself. Neither is even remotely provable. What we have right now is clear revealed preference. Opportunity arose (leverage with Ecuador), US pushed, UK opened procedures. This is a very clear falsification of "what extradition? it's all about rape charges".
- ChrisKnott 6y ago
  His own witness said at court that at the time of the rape accusation, there was no US extradition - so at this point it seems like it very much was "what extradition? it's all about rape charges"

jooize 6y ago

Would USA have had to request extradition before he reached Sweden? I would guess not. Makes sense they would not reveal that intention before, if possible. You say they secretly submitted such request, and I don't know what that fully means, but how would there be evidence if it is secret? I mean, can we know there wasn't a secret request in play, or one intended to be issued? Their later actual (even secret? Leaked?) request certainly validates the concern, no?

ChrisKnott 6y ago
In the linked article, Assange's own witness says that the Obama DoJ decided against prosecuting him. > "He said that credible sources had stated the Obama administration had decided not to prosecute Assange, notably Matthew Miller, a highly respected Justice Department figure who had been close to Attorney General Holder and would have been unlikely to brief the media without Holder’s knowledge and approval." I have never seen any evidence contradicting this, despite lots of people on the internet saying the Sweden EAW was part of a US conspiracy.

radu_floricica 6y ago

That's a very weak argument. It's basically based on if there was a secret extradition request, or the intention of having one filed when the opportunity presented itself. Neither is even remotely provable. What we have right now is clear revealed preference. Opportunity arose (leverage with Ecuador), US pushed, UK opened procedures. This is a very clear falsification of "what extradition? it's all about rape charges".

ChrisKnott 6y ago
His own witness said at court that at the time of the rape accusation, there was no US extradition - so at this point it seems like it very much was "what extradition? it's all about rape charges"