https://popehat.substack.com/p/is-following-an-extradition-treaty
@daisyj @Popehat Yep, as always Ken has a gift for turns of phrase.
Ah, Stanford, that model of honesty and probity.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/19/us/stanford-president-marc-tessier-lavigne-resigns/index.html
(And if I’m not mistaken, SBF’s dad appears to have been directly involved in some of the financial hijinks.)
@pyperkub @michaelgemar @daisyj @Popehat I blame the hyphens.
(Proper spelling is Stan-Ford.)
@Popehat Great article. I found a pretty big error though:
> Glenn’s point is dumb. Since Glenn is absolutely not dumb [...]
“Glenn’s ridicule here is dishonest or, at least, willfully ignorant.”
@Popehat I often wonder if the MAGA-leaning pundits and cognoscenti are actually that high on their own supply, or if they’re willfully misinterpreting literally everything, all of the time. It’s so confounding, when there’s actually good, legitimate points to be made at times.
@Popehat
I just wanted to check that I've understood - the extradition rule here specifically binds the US on what it can prosecute him for once he's been degreased and set in front of a judge.
So there's no possible way the US can introduce this charge post-extradition, right? It's considered outside of scope for good unless a similar charge can be bought on unrelated evidence after the fact? It's basically on a scout's honor basis and if the US were to renege they would risk forfeiting future extraditions? Sorry for oversimplifying, I'm just making sure I've understood the principle.