4 ms·
This is just a non-story. The guy gave testimony under oath (or signed an affadavit) and submitted it to court under penalty of perjury. Then the case was adjud
by tootie 5y ago
This is just a non-story. The guy gave testimony under oath (or signed an affadavit) and submitted it to court under penalty of perjury. Then the case was adjudicated in Assange's favor. Then months later he recants to the press. It's more likely he's lying now as PR than he was lying when his life depended on it. And his story is now completely moot since the case is over. Very few people are sufficiently interested in this story to make a big deal out of non-binding details. The case itself barely made news until it was decided.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago>And his story is now completely moot since the case is over. As the ruling was appealed, Assange is still in prison over all of this. The now discredited evidence is still part of the case against him.
- tootie 5y agoThen Assange's defense can cite the story, force the guy to recant or not on the stand and the judge can rule on its relevance.