[boomboomsubban]

> you are definining "nothing to do with" based on the assumed end result,

I have no clue how you've reached that conclusion. I'm saying this article is just about the extradition appeal, a decision that is being made regardless of what the charges are.

If the appeal is successful, the retraction will be important in the resumed extradition hearing. Articles about that possible hearing should definitely mention the retraction.

[okamiueru]

I'm still very confused by your argument. Maybe I'm missing some pieces. If this is an appeal based on a verdic related to X, then the appeal is also related to X. It seems disingenuous to imply otherwise.

"a decision that is being made regardless of what the charges are". Is the extradition not based on the charges? And is the appeal of the extradition then not also based on the charges?

If the charge was based on a staged witness, and the extradition was based on these charges. Is then not the appeal of extradition related to the staged witness?

[boomboomsubban]

The extradition ruling was that the charges were a valid reason to extradite, but for health concerns the extradition was rejected. The US then appealed the rejection claiming Assange's health could be guaranteed. The appeal does not mention the charges, and the judge will rule based solely on whether the US can show that the previous rejections based on health concerns was improper.

The article is entirely about that appeal, not the entire Assange extradition hearing. The retracted testimony has no bearing on the appeal, so when only writing about the appeal it is one of the many facts about the entire hearing that does not need to be mentioned.

My argument is just that this article discusses one tiny part of the entire process, and the charges are not relevant to that tiny part.

[okamiueru]

I see. Thanks for your patience in explaining it to me.