I can imagine what would happen if Russia tried the same tactic as the US and used diplomatic channels in order to successfully influence the legal systems in countries like the UK and Sweden.

It's called stealthing and very much a terrible thing to do.

Is inventing a rape charge in order to kidnap a journalist also a terrible thing to do, in your opinion?

I am disappointed in Sweden that a prosecutor went against Swedish law, was found to be guilty of Swedish law, and yet received no punishment. It the only known case in Swedish history where the crime was public news for years and yet the prosecutor continued without changing course.

I am disappointed that when it became known that US diplomats has been involved in influencing the Swedish case, nothing happen.

I am disappointed that a political active prosecutor took over a case from an other prosecutor in a rather explicit way after getting a "tip" to do so.

I am disappointed that the police somehow "leaked" protected documents to journalist.

I am disappointed that the Swedish government opened the case just after Wikileaks released a bunch of classified diplomatic cables, and dropped the case in order to allow the US to take it over.

I am disappointed that the Swedish government had zero interest in investigate the case.

I am disappointed that the Swedish police ignored the wishes of the women.

If you want to talk about stealthing we can do that, or if Assange is a respectful to his sexual partners, or about the finer details of Swedish categories of the lesser degree sexual offenses. It has nothing more with the actually case, than when a police murder someone for a parking violation. Severe corruption is a separate problem than if Assange are guilty of the Swedish charges or not.

As documented by judicial procedure (Swedish equivalent to FOIA), the "stealthing" was a pure invention by the police. It was added days later _as ordered by email_ by the hierarchical superior of the policewoman who typed the statement of the second woman. This was done against the original wishes of both women, and contrary to what they originally said. Even calling it a statement is a misnomer (read more further on that subject).

That happened after tabloids had published that a rape had allegedly happened, somehow with the name of the victims. The changed was annulled later, after the fact, when this was found out.

Proof/source : you can see said email in full as part of the interview by Republik.ch of the UN Special Reporteur of Torture. Link https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...

---

What the story actually is, as documented as a matter of judicial procedure :

The first woman had had consensual relations with Assange, knowingly without a condom, as she herself witnessed; the second woman had consensual sex one day after; she found out after he left the condom was broken; they found out about each other a little later.

Before asking Assange directly, they wanted to know if they could make Assange take an HIV test. They went to ask a policewoman friend of the first if that was possible. Neither didn't want to make a statement, nor sign one, nor report a crime.

The policewoman wrote it down just in case. Two hours later Swedish tabloids report Assange raped somebody. The condom, as tested later on, somehow contained no DNA of Assange's.

There was lot more fishy happening on the prosecutor's side, but it's beside this comments' points.

No, but they’d at least need to attempt it to be tossed in the same bucket as Russia re: Navalny.

The US’ repsponse (as quoted) was that these allegations were “wholly irrelevant.” That doesn’t sound like a denunciation or denial to me.

It's an unproven allegation and a world away from Navalny who was actually poisoned.