IANAL but the judge can't both reject the plea deal and sentence him, since rejecting the plea deal invalidates the guilty plea. Rejecting it and remanding him to custody would cause a diplomatic incident.
He's not out of the woods yet by any means, but if they reached a deal his lawyers are confident in, I wouldn't be worried about the judge. They are supposed to deffer to international law if US is a party to the treaties involved (which in the case of extradition, it is).
The US is a country with a history of outright kidnapping people from foreign soil - including that of friendly nations.
There's every chance here that this deal represents a way out for the US as well, and that it will be kept for that reason, but if the US government still wants him to stand trial, a plea deal and the risk of a minor diplomatic scuffle at a point in time where the UK parliamentary election will overshadow the case in UK media isn't going to stop them.
Keep in mind he doesn't have any support from the UK government - they'd rather be rid of him -, and the current UK government is almost certain to be out of government shortly. It's unlikely there'd be more of a diplomatic incident than a slightly stern letter.
I think he has reasonable odds - this case is likely at this point mostly just a nuisance for everyone involved except Assange himself. There's nothing to be gained, other than perhaps for some overzealous prosecutor. But I also would not be one bit surprised if something was to happen.
In addition, Keir Starmer (who will almost certainly become prime minister after July) has told the media in the past that he's 'pro-American', which suggests to me that he'd be unlikely to set the official relationship off to a bad start with awkward diplomatic interactions - and given how hostile Sir Keir is to Trump, I imagine he'd actively try to help Biden look good before the US presidential elections.
Yeah, I think the furthest Starmer would take this would be to instead attack the Tories for failing to ensure the case was handled better rather than attack the US.
The judge can't sentence him, but if the judge refuses the plea deal he can order him to be taken into immediate pre-trial detention and schedule a bail hearing in the near future; and then refuse bail due to him being a flight risk (previously ran from authorities).
He would then spend potentially several more years in jail preparing for trial, obtaining discovery, going through discovery, filing pretrial motions, subpoenaing witnesses, etc etc.
I don't think law, justice or even diplomacy are very relevant for most of this case.
1900 days in isolation (human rights violation), falsly accused of rape with the goal to extradite to the US, jailed outside of the US on behalf of the US (but not officially), and just the simple fact that a journalist gets jail time for exposing war crimes.
Yeah, this has nothing to do with law or justice. This is about a handful of people above the law trying to save their *sses. Anything could happen at this point.
Reminds me of when a foreign diplomatic aircraft (Equador) was forced to land in a foreign country (France), because the US thought Snowden might be on board. Remind me of the relevant law that allows for this please? lol
This. My hope is he had valuable information to give up about his former operators that was worth the plea deal, which is very possible as he's far from the only one.
Let an old spy go off and retire, he can't work anymore anyhow.
The accusers withdrew their testimony, Swedish prosecutors were caught falsifying and destroying documents, and the case was withdrawn due to lack of evidence.
I'd say that you could have found all this out yourself with Google, but you didn't even need to. All this info has already been linked in these comments.
You know accusers in sexual assault allegations often withdraw their testimony due to the pressures of the case – especially in this case where the women were threatened, smeared and accused of being honeypots etc?
Most of the links in these comments aren't authoritative in anyway
> There were never any formal criminal charges, and the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s investigation into Assange was dropped in November 2019 due to a lack of evidence.
> Rejecting it and remanding him to custody would cause a diplomatic incident.
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.
This case made a mockery out of the idea of separation of powers, which you'd know if you'd followed it at all. The case was political from day 1, and even if there is no last-moment disgrace from the US (I don't think there will be), it still will be 100% political.
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.
Because the UK was reluctant to give extradition based on the conditions offered by the US. Part of the reason the US is offering a plea deal is that it bypasses the need for extradition. Australia also asked the US to drop the case.
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.
The expectation would be at that point that Biden is asked to pardon (or commute the sentence of?) Assange. That's the political solution if the judge were to not accept the plea deal and remand Assange.
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.
Actually, you're correct, and my original answer was wrong. That's what I get for writing at 2am.
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.
> 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.
>There is a separation of powers between the prosecutor who is negotiating the extradition/plea and the judge who independently evaluates the agreement.
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.
Perhaps once you try considering the matter in the context it actually exists within instead of a vacuum you'll understand the answer to your asinine rhetorical.
He's not out of the woods yet by any means, but if they reached a deal his lawyers are confident in, I wouldn't be worried about the judge. They are supposed to deffer to international law if US is a party to the treaties involved (which in the case of extradition, it is).