[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.