3 ms·

Assange is set to face trial in a US court, and that is the only reason he is facing extradition. > I can see you arguing that that's not important, but falsel

Assange is set to face trial in a US court, and that is the only reason he is facing extradition. > I can see you arguing that that's not important, but falsely denying the assertion that its not in a US court is...I mean, what's even the point? I am arguing that it is important and view the extradition hearing as part of his larger US trial. His trial for skipping bail in the UK is long over, the only trial left is the US one.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> I am arguing that it is important and view the extradition hearing as part of his larger US trial. The extradition hearing is factually not part of his US trial. > the only trial left is the US one. The US charges are the only ones that he is currently known to be facing a potential future trial for, sure. But “potential future” and “actual current” are not the same thing.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  The first step of the trial was for charges to be filed. The next part was using those charges to request his extradition. At this point you could say the extradition hearing is not a part of his trial, but it is only happening because of the trial and the US is the reason he is in prison currently. I'd write this off as weird pedantry but you're accusing me of lying for some reason.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The first step of the trial was for charges to be filed No, that's neither the first step of the process (even the formal legal process) nor any step of the trial.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      This entire conversation would be much more productive if you did more than just say I'm wrong or lying. All of this seems like parts of the pretrial layed out by the US constitutional criminal procedure. I guess you could distinguish trial from pretrial, but if that was your point you really could have just stated that right away.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      Jesus christ stop this. It doesn't matter whether it's the "first" step or an "early" step. It doesn't matter if the entire process is being summed up as "trial", even though parts of the process are not technically part of the trail.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> I am arguing that it is important and view the extradition hearing as part of his larger US trial. The extradition hearing is factually not part of his US trial. > the only trial left is the US one. The US charges are the only ones that he is currently known to be facing a potential future trial for, sure. But “potential future” and “actual current” are not the same thing.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
The first step of the trial was for charges to be filed. The next part was using those charges to request his extradition. At this point you could say the extradition hearing is not a part of his trial, but it is only happening because of the trial and the US is the reason he is in prison currently. I'd write this off as weird pedantry but you're accusing me of lying for some reason.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The first step of the trial was for charges to be filed No, that's neither the first step of the process (even the formal legal process) nor any step of the trial.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    This entire conversation would be much more productive if you did more than just say I'm wrong or lying. All of this seems like parts of the pretrial layed out by the US constitutional criminal procedure. I guess you could distinguish trial from pretrial, but if that was your point you really could have just stated that right away.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    Jesus christ stop this. It doesn't matter whether it's the "first" step or an "early" step. It doesn't matter if the entire process is being summed up as "trial", even though parts of the process are not technically part of the trail.