>> "Dear Emma, you seem to have completely missed the point. The problem is not what the US has done (past tense) but what the US will do (future tense)."
> What may or not happen is not within the remit of the court at this point. A specific request for extradition would be assessed on it's merits (as has happened with Lauri Love), this hearing is to assess whether or not charges should be dropped for an offense that Assange is blatantly guilty of.
That is kind of the point: if she is supposed to be addressing the issue of Assange breaking his bail conditions then she need not mention the US at all. But she didn't: she chose to make a one-sided statement. If she'd made a balanced statement or none at all then I wouldn't have called her on it.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
