Re: For what it is worth
@Danny 2: the fatal flaw with your hypothesis is the need for specificity of the crime. What, exactly, did Assange do in 2010 that was worthy of indictment, and yet not extradition? The issue is that non-Americans publishing stuff outside of the USA which embarrasses America is not a crime inside the USA; it's easy to mock the US legal system, but the First Amendment is probably the most significant bit of law in the world today.
But interfering with an election inside the USA is a US Federal crime, no matter where you are.located.
I know, the conspiracy theory is so much sexier, but it's nonsense.
Lastly, lots of people have whined about sealed indictments, but there's nothing morally or practically wrong with them. Quite the contrary: they are absolutely necessary in any judicial system where the subject may choose to, say, lock himself in a broom closet of a foreign embassy in order to escape arrest. Personally, I think the pro-Assange nutters are deliberately conflating the idea of a sealed indictment with that of a secret trial-in-absentia.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
