"innocent" of what? i'm sure prosecutors will have ten thousand pages of varied charges. the us wants to make an example of him very loudly and very publicly.

Because when you're wrongfully charged, you're often imprisoned, etc etc. And the cost of defending yourself can be astronomical.

A quick google suggests the maximum sentence for the crime Assange is accused of is 5 years. He has already spent nearly 7 years in an embassy, kind of under "house arrest" type conditions.

>Wrongfully charged

You've seen all the evidence?

Nope, never said so at all. Just commented about the power imbalance between an individual and the government. There's no real negative outcome for the government when they wrongfully charge someone. Worst result is they lose the case. More often, they overload the charge sheet such that most cases end up in a plea agreement.

For the defendant, the burden is incredible. Often you're jailed, so no income. Legal costs are high, and if you're middle class, ruinous. Then the nature of most trials is that despite "innocent until proven guilty," the government typically benefits from a favorable reputation in the jury room.

Finally, look at what normally happens when the government and its agents falsify evidence? Normally a slap on the hand, a dismissal of the case, etc etc. The prosecution can treat the discovery process as if it's optional with no real repercussions.

So imho, it's not even close to a fair match. Remeber Richlieu's boast? "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."