Is Julian Assange Being Falsly Imprissoned?

[Ddrak]

Uh, you do understand that one case among tens of thousands is the very definition of anecdotal, right?

Dd

[Kulaf]

Here's another one:

https://youtu.be/_WW3IuWHq-A

And you realize that when the Federal government withholds Brady evidence, unless there is an investigation it goes unchecked, unreported and innocent people go to prison.

[Ddrak]

Again, you're repeating the fallacy of choosing anecdotes to prove a general case. You're many thousands of anecdotes short of a statistic at the moment.

Of course if the government withholds evidence then its case is in trouble. Marisa Tomei told me that in "My Cousin Vinnie"!

I also never proscribe to malice (or conspiracy, corruption or other evil) anything that can be explained by other means, especially if it involves following procedure in the most lazy way possible.

Dd

[Kulaf]

If they are willing to do it in a high profile case like Flynn, they do it all the time. They just get away with it because of lazy federal judges and corrupt prosecutors.

Let's drop the pearl clutching defense of the government.

[Ddrak]

Nah, not buying it. Not even buying there was deliberate withholding on Flynn. They government is just not run well enough to be conspiratorial. I just see it all as nice defence lawyering to bring up a barely plausible alternative narrative that makes a jury acquit on "reasonable doubt". No need to ever prove the theory, just hang it out there for the jury to stumble on. Just like the Snipes case.

I do get what you're saying, and I'm not defending anything. I just see it with different motives (or absence thereof).

Dd

[Kulaf]

Dd, the second video I posted has direct evidence that the DoJ lawyers DISCUSSED how to hide the exculpatory evidence inside other already released evidence hoping that the defense would not see it.

FFS man.

It was so bad that the Judge ordered his notice to be read to all SDNY staff under penalty of contempt of court.

[Ddrak]

I guess I'm saying that I can't get over the hurdle that this is individual actions on the prosecutors, not a general conspiracy. Does it happen that they engage in misconduct now and then? Almost certainly, and a search for those actions is very likely to turn up results. However, the existence of misconduct cases says a number of things:

i) That when it's discovered, they don't get away with it, and the courts take a very dim view, and
ii) The number of cases indicates it's not more endemic than ego-driven prosecution would imply, and
iii) It's not normalized. Discussions of "how to hide it" means they know it's wrong.

Dd

[Kulaf]

https://youtu.be/WlZwnBWvvpU?t=11

[Ddrak]

I figured the Manning case was more than enough to convict. Haven't been following too closely. I'm just happy as long as someone else wants him and he doesn't come back to Australia.

Dd

[Kulaf]

According to a source I read, the US promised the UK that should Assange be convicted and need to serve time, the time will be served in AUS rather than the US.

So you might just get him back.

[Ddrak]

According to a source I read, the US promised the UK that should Assange be convicted and need to serve time, the time will be served in AUS rather than the US.

So you might just get him back.

Oh... yay... definitely want that circus over here. I think I read the same thing though. I'm not particularly willing to predict which way the trial would go in the US. You have some fairly strong freedom of speech laws compared to most nations.

Dd