Indictments are summaries of the allegations for which the grand jury has found probable cause based on evidence. They don't need to contain any evidence themselves, as their purpose isn't to prove charges but to state them.
> I mean sure presumably there is more evidence, but this indictment seems pretty thin to me.
All criminal conspiracy legally needs is a agreed common purpose which is itself criminal and a concrete act by any of the participants to advance the common purpose.
> All criminal conspiracy legally needs is a agreed common purpose which is itself criminal and a concrete act by any of the participants to advance the common purpose.
Well I hope that they have something more concrete than him saying "no luck so far" because I read that as all of nothing. I make similar statements all the time and it need not mean I've done a thing.
Even with your elucidation, it seems to me that indictment seems to working quite creatively to paint Assange as conspiring with Manning. I presume at least that the British would demand to see the evidence of the conspiracy.
> I mean sure presumably there is more evidence, but this indictment seems pretty thin to me.
All criminal conspiracy legally needs is a agreed common purpose which is itself criminal and a concrete act by any of the participants to advance the common purpose.