It seems to me quite likely that he is guilty of the hacking charges (though I am open minded on this point).

For it to be a show trial there would have to be no realistic possibility of the jury finding him not guilty. I don't see why that should be the case.

well, for a start there's no jury. A magistrate, who is already clearly showing bias and a tendency to read verdicts from a laptop rather than actually decide them, is the sole arbiter of whether he gets extradited or not.

I am talking about the trial following his (probable) extradition. If you'll forgive a little semantic pedantry, an extradition hearing is neither a trial nor (in the UK) a proceeding that's televized, so it would be quite a stretch to describe an extradition hearing as a 'show trial'.

Why should we trust he will get a fair hearing at the actual trial if he's not even getting a fair hearing at the extradition hearing?

John Kiriakou (the only person from the CIA ever to be indicted from its involvement in torture, because he leaked details about it to the press) has said it is impossible that Assange will get a fair trial in the Virginia court which will handle his case.

I don't agree with your premise. But the obvious answer would be that the the trial will take place in another country under a different legal system involving none of the same people (except Assange himself).

It's not an obvious answer at all, given that the most reasonable implication of biased behaviour by the judged during the extradition hearing would be if there is pressure from the US behind the scenes.

As such, whether or not you agree that the judges behaviour actually is biased, if the judge is biased there is no reason to trust the US courts will be unbiased either.

I think it's more likely that the British judge just disagrees with your assessment of the case. Unless you have any actual evidence of something more sinister, we'll just have to leave it there.

Of course we don't have evidence of anything more sinister, but the reporting demonstrates a repeated and extreme bias coupled with treatment not normally seen in UK extradition cases, to a level that it's deeply irrational to assume there isn't pressure involved.

The pre-written decisions alone, read out unmodified after listening to testimony is irregular enough that it is illogical to assume this judge is doing her job, as there is no evidence to suggest she is..

What treatment is not normally seen in UK extradition cases? Were you a keen observer of UK extradition hearings prior to this one?

It's common for judges to read out their decisions. (Do you expect them to memorize their lines like actors?)

I don't know how you think you can know that the decisions are "unmodified". It's quite likely that the judge has prepared multiple options in advance and chosen one based on what happened at the hearing.

no, you don't understand. This is the trial. If he gets to the USA he'll "commit suicide" in a cell, or have some weird show trial where he confesses to everything. There's zero chance that the USA will actually conduct a fair trial, and set him free if he's found to do have done nothing except embarrass powerful people. This is his last chance. The British justice system was supposed to be incorruptible, and blind. Not so much now.

Oh please, stop with the QAnon level conspiracy nonsense. Most likely, he will be offered a plea like everybody that has been charged, including Winner and Manning. If not, he will have a chance to run PrisonLeaks, doing hard hitting pieces on mystery meat and the proper recipe for shit on shingles.

Yeah I don’t think this rises to Q levels. You’d have to be pretty naive to think Assange will get a fair trial anywhere at this point.

He will get as fair a trial as anybody in the US, which means not really fair, but certainly fairer than most poor people.