This assumes the other side plays fair. This assumes that the judge and jury will be rational. This assumes that it's really about sexual assault, and not about politics.

Have you ever seen a rape trial? They're not known for being level-headed.

And that's totally besides my views on wikileaks, Julian Assange or anything else.

"Continued after his partner asked him to stop" is rape by definition. "Did not disclose the breakage to his partner" may not technically be rape, but I'm comfortable characterizing it as sexual assault. In either case, it sounds like an allegation worth prosecuting--and that's totally besides my views on Wikileaks, Julian Assange, or anything else.

According to this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/assange-bail-req...

Which has the actual charges in it there was a second occasion with the same lady, this stretches credulity I believe, one count of rape with one person according to this definition I could believe, but two are at a minimum a little strange and would require some pretty fancy footwork to be explained away. Especially with the victim throwing a party for the perp between the two occasions.

The fact that the witnesses colluded and that Assange apparently was at their places at their invitation and that he undoubtedly was not aware of any of these laws and that at least one of the women definitely was (and tweeted all over the place about it) makes this all very sordid (pardon the pun) indeed and not nearly as clear-cut as you might think at first glance.

Personally I think Julian Assange is an idiot for behaving like this while knowing he's under the microscope but given that the flesh is weak and that these women apparently only decided to go to the police after comparing notes makes the whole thing something that may have been harder to avoid than it looks.

The case is so shaky that one Swedish prosecutor already overruled another and dropped it only to have it revived again without knowledge or consent of the victims.

Pretty weird if you ask me.

...is not in the least bit suspicious, if you know anything about the psychology of rape survivors. Believe it or not, most people who have been through that situation don't really want to relive it over and over again throughout a prolonged trial. (Conversely, it's pretty easy to psychologically pressure a rape survivor into not pressing charges, or into dropping charges.) One of the only things that will actually motivate a survivor to press charges is if they discover their rapist attacked someone else, because then it's a pattern of behavior and one feels responsible to come forward so he won't rape anyone else.

If you want to go with the conspiracy theory that the CIA bribed two Swedish women to file false charges against Julian Assange just to stop Wikileaks, that's up to you. Frankly, I think that's in the same realm of plausibility as the idea that Julian Assange just happens to be a rapist. And, more to the point, this kind of uncertainty is exactly why we have trials to begin with.

I intend no such thing.

This isn't exactly to the detriment of Assange. It's easy to get away with rape if you're willing to completely tar your victim's reputation. And if you're a popular public figure, your fans will completely go along with this. Just ask Kobe.

EDIT: Although, Swedish culture might be different in this respect.

I think he'll be fine.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Ju...