There's a lot going on in the world, not everything can be covered urgently in a general interest publication. They don't have unlimited reporters.
Edward Snowden said: "This is the end of the case against Julian Assange."
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1408847450656415751
I find it hard to believe the media would be silent if similar revelations came to light about anyone else.
I agree with Media Lens:
> in a sane world, Stundin’s revelations about a key Assange witness – that Thordarson lied in exchange for immunity from prosecution – would have been headline news everywhere, with extensive media coverage on BBC News at Six and Ten, ITV News, Channel 4 News, front-page stories in the Times, Telegraph, the Guardian and more. The silence is quite extraordinary; and disturbing.
Everybody is a critic of what the MSM is covering. They cover what is interesting. It isn’t a giant conspiracy to explain their behavior.
His extradition hearing to see if this charge can be tried is currently facing an appeal, and he is still in prison partially for this charge.
And it is getting coverage! It just isn’t front page news.
And it isn't getting any major oublisher coverage, searching "Julian Assange" on both DDG and Google news shows only Democracy Now covering the story.
Yes, the USA is charging him. It would be very odd for extradition hearings on US federal charges to be heard in a US court, and, in fact, these are not. Assange is not on trial, and the process he is currently undergoing in is not in an American court, though there are charges pending that he would face in a US court if that process completes as the US prefers.
I can see you arguing that that's not important, but falsely denying the assertion that its not in a US court is...I mean, what's even the point?
> I can see you arguing that that's not important, but falsely denying the assertion that its not in a US court is...I mean, what's even the point?
I am arguing that it is important and view the extradition hearing as part of his larger US trial. His trial for skipping bail in the UK is long over, the only trial left is the US one.
The extradition hearing is factually not part of his US trial.
> the only trial left is the US one.
The US charges are the only ones that he is currently known to be facing a potential future trial for, sure. But “potential future” and “actual current” are not the same thing.
I'd write this off as weird pedantry but you're accusing me of lying for some reason.
No, that's neither the first step of the process (even the formal legal process) nor any step of the trial.
All of this seems like parts of the pretrial layed out by the US constitutional criminal procedure. I guess you could distinguish trial from pretrial, but if that was your point you really could have just stated that right away.
It doesn't matter whether it's the "first" step or an "early" step. It doesn't matter if the entire process is being summed up as "trial", even though parts of the process are not technically part of the trail.
> Edward Snowden said: "This is the end of the case against Julian Assange."
What does Snowden know? He's not a lawyer of any sort.
You're treating him like he's some generic authority, who's pronouncements on any subject carry weight. That's weird.
I think your response is not weird but disingenuous.
>> What does Snowden know? He's not a lawyer of any sort.
> He is broadly considered a generic authority based on his long, deep thinking and publications about leaks and legal consequences.
Maybe so, but I wouldn't hire him as my lawyer or rely on his judgements about when a legal case will fail.
It's the difference between thinking about the consequences of a technology and building/operating that technology. For instance, someone might be an expert on the pernicious social effects of Facebook, but would flame out if they actually worked as a developer there. Snowden more than likely doesn't have the technical knowledge of the British legal system for him to reliably tell the difference between a major and minor development, let alone make trustworthy prediction about the future outcome of the whole thing.