WikiLeaks' Big Tuesday Announcement Will Now Take Place Via Video (thehill.com)

Long-time Slashdot reader SonicSpike writes that media outlets including Fox News were reporting WikiLeaks cancelled a big announcement scheduled for Tuesday and expected to reveal damaging information about Hillary Clinton. But they were all citing a tweet from NBC as their source. "Due to security concerns at the Ecuadorian Embassy, Julian Assange's balcony announcement on Tues has been cancelled," tweeted NBC producer Jesse Rodriguez -- which was apparently taken to mean the announcement had been cancelled altogether.

But six hours ago, citing WikiLeaks, that same producer reported that Assange "will appear via video link" at a Tuesday press conference in Berlin marking the 10th anniversary of WikiLeaks. While it's possible this "appearance" will be different than the originally scheduled "announcement," it also seems very possible that the NBC producer's tweets were just misunderstood.

Comments

Re:Repent and be saved.

[MightyMartian]

No matter what year it is over the last 2000 years, some nut thinks it's the Apocalypse.

Re:He Is A Darling Of The Cyber Rebels

[Powercntrl]

We are all looking forward to whatever "October Surprise" he can cook up for The Establishment Candidate.

Hillary may be part of the establishment, but Trump is a textbook example of the type of people the establishment works for. Trump supporters are like a bunch of cows who'd rather be herded by a slaughterhouse owner, solely because they've had bad experiences with farmers.

Re:Why is this here?

[Microlith]

Yep. Who knew a supposedly smart techie readership could be taken in by a con man like Trump?

Re:Hopefully

[Mashiki]

For the lazy and on the NYT.

Re:Here's a good question:

[Rei]

The fact is that the UK has been told they have to not only allow him his freedom, but have to also compensate him for the illegal detention they've put him under.

By a nonbinding body (WGAD) that rules in favour of almost all plaintiffs that come before it (usually unanimously, unlike in this case). Both the UK and Sweden have stated the WGAD ruling will have no bearing on the case at hand. Assange raised it in his most recent appeal with the Swedish courts (yet another in a long row of them). He lost.

The fact is that Sweden has and can interview him in the embassy, and were dragging their feet (read:political corruption).

Read: Ecuador is demanding that Sweden sign some sort of treaty - the exact details of which have not been publicly disclosed by either side - before they'll allow the prosecutors in, something that Sweden is against. This has been a stalemate for the past 16 months. Before that, Sweden had been insisting on the interview taking place in Sweden in order to follow the standard Swedish process, which is: 1) the initial investigatory phase is carried out, including any interviews 2) if the prosecutor believes charges to be likely and the subject will not voluntarily enter custody, the prosecutor recommends to a judge that the subject be formally anklagad (suspected of/charged with a crime); 3) the judge issues a warrant and the subject is brought into custody; 4) the subject is interviewed (for a second time, if there were interviews conducted in the initial phase), with every matter they are to be charged with put be put forth to them; 5) the subject is formally åtalad (charged/indicted); this begins a time limit on when the subject must be tried (although it can be extended if there are conditions that prevent the person from being tried immediately); and 6) the subject is tried (this cannot occur in absentia). As a general rule, while investigatory interviews are conducted anywhere, final interviews are conducted in Swedish custody, so that if the person is åtalad there is no risk that they could escape trial. This was the route sought by prosecutor Ny up until 2015, when - due to the shortage of time remaining on the lesser charges, and criticism from a lower court for her not seeking less conventional options to try to break the deadlock, Ny sought an interview in the Ecuadorian embassy. The deadlock on this latter issue remains to this day.

The anklagad/åtalad distinction has often been a stumbling ground in the english-speaking press because it doesn't directly map to stages in US or British legal systems, which generally only recognize one stage of charging, while Sweden has two (one to bring a subject into custody, and one to initiate a trial). However, there is significant jurisprudence that anklagad equates to being charged within the context of an EAW - whatever language one chooses to use for other contexts.

A general summary of peer-reviewed rankings of the Swedish legal system on different aspects can be found here, more detailed information about what the categories mean and how they're assessed here (extremely detailed here and here) , and more detailed information in general here.

Re: Why is this here?

[porksauce]

Do you have any citation for that? The only one I found was on Snopes where they're saying it's False.