That article is very confused. It starts by claiming that Ecuador did what the letter said. Then it points out that the letter is not an official document (it was unsigned). Then it concludes that everything in the letter is still true, even though the Ecuadorian government pointed out that it isn't.
Comments
That article is very confused. It starts by claiming that Ecuador did what the letter said. Then it points out that the letter is not an official document (it was unsigned). Then it concludes that everything in the letter is still true, even though the Ecuadorian government pointed out that it isn't.
Shouldn't they have waited until they actually have Snowden? Isn't he in Russia now?