I find the whole spectacle of watching two propaganda machines trying to out- manoeuvre each other to be a little exhausting to be honest.
There's no doubt that the US is acting vindictively here, but the pro-Assange camp does little for its credibility by using the same tactics.
Even the headline here has been massaged - originally this was a "key" witness but by the time it gets to HN, he's a "keystone" witness.
But the bigger problem is that he's neither. I've been vaguely following the case and this is the first mention of this guy I've seen. TFA asserts that the 2nd indictment rests on his bought testimony, but there's nothing about hacking Icelandic MPs or banks in that indictment. There's definitely stuff about hacking, but only about US targets, and Thordarson has nothing to say about that.
Unless I'm missing something, this is a minor story about the DoJ doing a deal with one criminal to convict another (hardly news in itself) in order to strengthen an already robust case, not the slam dunk people are making it out to be.
There's no doubt that the US is acting vindictively here, but the pro-Assange camp does little for its credibility by using the same tactics.
Even the headline here has been massaged - originally this was a "key" witness but by the time it gets to HN, he's a "keystone" witness.
But the bigger problem is that he's neither. I've been vaguely following the case and this is the first mention of this guy I've seen. TFA asserts that the 2nd indictment rests on his bought testimony, but there's nothing about hacking Icelandic MPs or banks in that indictment. There's definitely stuff about hacking, but only about US targets, and Thordarson has nothing to say about that.
Unless I'm missing something, this is a minor story about the DoJ doing a deal with one criminal to convict another (hardly news in itself) in order to strengthen an already robust case, not the slam dunk people are making it out to be.