Assange case is unraveling

It appears that the key witness in the US case against Assange is not only recanting his testimony but provided proof that it was false. This is the guy, who’s testimony the US Justice Department hung the ridiculous “Helped with hacking” charge on against Assange to avoid compromising all other news sources that publish leaked secrets. Turns out he received immunity for past and current crimes in exchange for his “testimony” including child molestation.

edit. Added original article.

4 Likes

It never really seemed like a good case. It was always obvious that they wanted to punish him for doing what he does, which is publishing government secrets.

3 Likes

The whole thing stunk to high heaven. He is no saint but it’s one thing to call someone out on some dumb shit but entirely another thing to enlist the US security apparatus, the governments of Iceland, UK, Sweden, as well as the FBI and a lying pedophile to burn a guy. What I want to know is how the hell is this not on CCN, FOX, MSNBC, NPR, etc etc etc…

3 Likes

The original article in the Icelandic paper that broke the story:

A major witness in the United States’ Department of Justice case against Julian Assange has admitted to fabricating key accusations in the indictment against the Wikileaks founder. The witness, who has a documented history with sociopathy and has received several convictions for sexual abuse of minors and wide-ranging financial fraud, made the admission in a newly published interview in Stundin where he also confessed to having continued his crime spree whilst working with the Department of Justice and FBI and receiving a promise of immunity from prosecution.

1 Like

US offers Julian Assange time in Australian prison instead of American supermax if he loses London extradition fight

1 Like

How key was this testimony to the case? If it was as key as they say, then the charges should be dropped quickly, but I wonder what else the prosecution has, if anything.

1 Like

I was thinking the same thing. My guess is they are not keeping any evidence secret as it would help them extradite him easier if exposed.

I still don’t understand how this resolves the “New York Times” problem. If anything, it’s a ploy to force the UK’s hand and eliminate their primary objection to extradite.