story
Why would it be a diplomatic incident? When you are a fugitive from justice taking a plea deal is always a gamble because you have to show up in court. Should the judge reject your deal, you are handed over to US Marshals pending a new court date.
Edit: downvote all you want, it doesn't change facts. There is a separation of powers between the prosecutor who is negotiating the extradition/plea and the judge who independently evaluates the agreement.
They probably just realized they shouldn't dig the embarrassment hole any deeper, and think that an extorted confession is the most face-saving they're going to get.
He committed a crime against the United States, they empaneled a grand jury, and handed down 18 federal charges of espionage and computer intrusion. The US sought extradition just like they would in any other similar case.
While he fighting extradition, he was actively attempting to recruit hackers to break into US government systems and steal information for him.
Assange was the one who was constantly trying to make it political and turned it into a clown show by trying to paint himself as a journalist.
That is the definition of a political crime. Governments are allowed to charge people of crimes which only have the government as victim, but most countries (including the UK) have laws against extradition for such crimes.
And when the person you charge is not a citizen of your country, and the act harming government is simply journalism, you have to be pretty blind to deny that it's political.
> they empaneled a grand jury
which can famously indict a ham sandwich. The grand jury was empaneled in a district in which half the adults work for the spy agencies as I recall.
There's a clown show. We are not obliged to respect this kind of process as something proper and legitimate.
> trying to paint himself as a journalist
He has won a ton of journalistic awards. When journalists call you a journalists, you are a journalist, even if security services and their online yes-men say otherwise.
So offering a deal only to have the UK agree to release Assange and lure him to US territory would definitely be a diplomatic issue, possibly jeopardizing future extraditions from the UK, for instance.
I wouldn't expect the judge not to go along with this though - he is pleading guilty and did serve what is now being called a sentence and presumably the US government can say that there are other benefits to his freedom that should not be overriden by the judiciary.
source: over a decade of experience in pretrial operations
Does the judge have to honor the prosecution agreement or is the judge free to impose a different sentence than what was agreed to by the prosecution?
Here's how it works generally: when you plead guilty the judge warns you that they do not have to accept the plea deal and can sentence you however the hell they wish. You plead guilty and then the judge tells you if they accept the prosecution's deal. I've seen several defendants surprised by the judge not taking the sweet probation deal and turning around and giving the defendant years in prison which they are unable to appeal.
So, in theory, the judge could potentially give Assange some time.
So why are you writing all this and then doubling down?
> A letter from Justice Department official Matthew McKenzie to U.S. District Judge Ramona Manglona of the Northern Mariana Islands District said that Assange would appear in court at 9 a.m. local time Wednesday (7 p.m. ET Tuesday) to plead guilty and that the Justice Department expects Assange will return to Australia, his country of citizenship, after the proceedings.
Northern Mariana Islands District is US jurisdiction.
Now please excuse me while I find my tanto.
Oh, sweet summer child. In such political cases there is almost zero "separation of powers". Much higher powers than the judge and the prosecutor are involved directly.
