Much of the commentary around the legal aspects of Assange's case it misleading or outright false.
See:
1. (2012) https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mytho...
2. (2019) https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/11165977611288453...
Ecuador started arranging for him to leave the embassy at least five months ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/06/ecuador-says-u...
Why didn't Sweden have an extradition request ready? They had at least five months to prepare one.
The US does not need Sweden's involvement to extradite and try Assange. The rape charges are separate and irrelevant to the charges he faces in the US, and whether the UK would even grant his extradition to the US is not a sure thing.
These two cases are unrelated, and the only reason they have been conflated is a concerted effort on the part of Assange supporters to discredit the accusations of sexual misconduct by lumping them in with his WikiLeaks activities and make up a whole lot of guff about CIA plots rather than just accept that he should face the criminal justice procedure for some shitty personal behaviour on his part.
Ecuador hardly needed to notify Sweden. It was international news. The Guardian article from five months ago that I linked was just one of many. "No one in the Swedish government reads international news" is not a credible explanation.
I see two possible explanations:
1) Sweden doesn't place a high priority on prosecuting famous accused rapists who've escaped justice for years, or
2) Sweden doesn't consider Assange a famous accused rapist who's escaped justice for years.
I don't find that believable, but whatever.
It really does look to me like you are grasping at straws, but maybe I've missed something.
I just realize Assange is a high-value target for political and legal attacks (including false allegations), so I think people who unquestioningly believe what they hear about him from official sources are naive. Haven't we all seen enough to know that governments and the media don't always tell the truth?
And when Sweden cracked down on The Pirate Bay we saw that the Swedish government is not immune to pressure from Washington.
All I'm saying is: wait for conclusive proof before leaping to conclusions.
From what I recall about the situation from past threads is that Sweden cannot send extradition requests in advance. Most criminal courts don't go out of their way to break the rules as that costs and they have to justify the budget.
Also why spend extra time and money on something when they could just wait until he was under British custody? Where is the urgency when normal procedures would suffice?
The Americans went out of their way because this is a political matter to them and their budget was approved.
These things normally takes quite some time.
Interesting, this is the first I heard about the DNA evidence, which is compelling. The prosecutor's dropping of this charge is reasonable given the lack of any DNA present on the sabotaged condom.
Also should mention that Craig Murray is a personal friend of Julian Assange, something his blog readers are well aware of. Murray is the one who testified he personally collected the DNC email leak from a disgruntled DNC employee in Washington DC and hand couriered it across the Atlantic where he handed it over to Assange. This leak origin account contradicts the Russian hacker narrative regarding the DNC email leak.
Based on all the problems Assange has faced in the last 8 years, it's pretty much "mission accomplished, total victory".
They did find DNA in the other woman's condom, but that condom was not split and there was no claim by her of condom sabotage.
With that in mind, I've moved 19797118 to be a child of 19796933. Even if the guess is wrong, it makes more sense in that context anyway.
The original case was closed since the prosecutor didn't expect a conviction because Assange was hiding under a rock.
> No it hasn't.
IIRC, a couple of the less serious crimes expired but the most serious one remains prosecutable.
The rape charge is the one that's still prosecutable, but he'd previously faced allegations of "sexual molestation" and "unlawful coercion."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11949341:
> August 2015 - Swedish prosecutors drop their investigation into two allegations - one of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion because they have run out of time to question him. But he still faces the more serious accusation of rape
Edit: This article clarifies the meaning of the other Swedish allegations by quoting them in detail: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/julian-ass...
Prosecutors dropped the rape investigation in 2017 because they were unable to formally notify him of allegations while he was staying in the embassy.
They are considering re-opening the investigation.
Top prosecutor Marianne Ny said his arrest warrant was being revoked as it was impossible to serve him notice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39973864
You are unlikely to come to sound conclusions if you reason on the basis of your knowledge of US law. Sweden is not the US.
There are many differences between the US and EU/UK.
His questioning here is clearly in bad faith. Assange successfully evaded justice on most of his charges in Sweden because they have a statute of limitations. It's not something to celebrate.
The situation with Assange is all public record. Obama DoJ didn't pursue extradition, Trump DoJ did.
Separately to this, Assange was suspected of sexual offences in Sweden, most of which have now expired. Connected to those charges, he committed an offence under the Bail Act in the UK for which he has now been convicted.
Anyone arguing that USA was intending to extradite Assange in 2010 is misinformed or arguing in bad faith. Only Sweden wanted to extradite him in 2010 because they had strong evidence he had committed a sexual offence in their jurisdiction.
---
Downvoters - did I get something wrong?
He regards "bellingcat" as an enemy; they are the supposedly independent blogger producing OSINT that showed the Russian missile launcher used to shoot down MH-17. These days I'm suspicious of people defending the argument that this wasn't Russia.
He was removed from his ambassadorship to Uzbekistan because he protested against human rights violations in Uzbekistan. This may not be what an ambassador should do, but displays integrity.
[1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/03/pure-ten-poi...
Considering how well its working, I'd say they're left looking pretty smart.
> If the Swedish allegations against Julian Assange were genuine and not simply a ruse to arrest him for extradition to the United States, where is the arrest warrant now from Sweden and what are the charges?
> Only the more minor allegation has passed the statute of limitations deadline. The major allegation, equivalent to rape, is still well within limits. Sweden has had seven years to complete the investigation and prepare the case. It is over two years since they interviewed Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. They have had years and years to collect all the evidence and prepare the charges.
> So where, Swedish prosecutors, are your charges? Where is your arrest warrant?
> Julian Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden. He was merely “wanted for questioning”, a fact the MSM repeatedly failed to make clear. It is now undeniably plain that there was never the slightest intention of charging him with anything in Sweden. All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid.
> [...]
[1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/so-where-is-...