> 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-...
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.
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".
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.
Considering how well its working, I'd say they're left looking pretty smart.
EDIT: And tbh I'm not sure how the original arrest warrant for rape could be considered by anyone to be a "technicality".
The jail sentence for skipping bail is the reasonable part of the whole story. No question that it was about as bad a case of bail-skipping as could be imagined.
The issue is more one of why exactly is the justice system involving itself in his business. He didn't think he'd committed a crime in Sweden. His 'victims' didn't think he needed to be arrested. The police didn't think he needed to be arrested at the time either. The word 'rape' seems to be something of a mistranslation on this one.
I gather (from Wikipedia) that he maintained he had consensual sex [0], so it's going to be interesting, if he does get to Sweden before the US grabs him, what actual evidence is involved.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
It's not a guaranteed conviction. The president has an embarrassing YouTube reel where he "loves WikiLeaks" 50 times. It'll drag the contents of contentious leaks back into the spotlight. It could be more convenient to let it go.
But America isn't a dictatorship so the decision isn't exactly up to him. There's a whole legal system operating under their own framework that the president doesn't have much control over.
You should probably let the Met know. They seem to think there is one.
>UPDATE: Julian Assange arrest.
>Julian Assange, 47, (03.07.71) has today, Thursday 11 April, been further arrested on behalf of the United States authorities, at 10:53hrs after his arrival at a central London police station. This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the Extradition Act. He will appear in custody at Westminster Magistrates' Court later today (Thursday, 11 April).
http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest-of-julian-assan...
However in these cases they were both done with co-operation from the local police (or military) and government as part of the US "war on terror" (abductions without local government approval have also happened in the past -- Mossad did this in the 1960s[2] -- but I don't recall a US example).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann#Capture
In that context, I wouldn't really be surprised if it's happened before, tho the blowback potential, if it should become public, would be massive so it will probably be kept under extremely tight wraps.
[0] https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/20-extraordina...
>"I understand they, I understand they intervened on our behalf.
>So we're going to extradite him and we're going to get him back, it'll be really good to get him back on United States soil.
>He's our property. So we can get the facts and the truth from him."
https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1116322371781058561/video/...
I expect better from the BBC. He was never charged with anything related to that investigation. There were no such charges to drop; this statement is factually inaccurate.
But all of the leaks were factual, no "crafting" to form a narrative involved. The DNC did undermine Bernie Sanders, she did say she had "private and public positions", and a whole host of other things. Just because they didn't publish what the RNC was doing doesn't make the leaks any less true or important.
There are many people who continue to hold him in high esteem, despite claims about his organization's ulterior motives.
I’m sure he is fully aware that his actions have put his life in danger, but I’m also sure he doesn’t believe he should accept this fact without fighting.
Disgracefully dishonest in multiple ways. Not to mention, the police force's continued incompetence should have no bearing (maybe it didn't).
The courts could have been forward thinking and left his bail-skipping as a misdemeanor.
(the following in quote marks are direct quotes from the alleged victims.)
On 17 August, SW wrote "JA did not want to use a condom".
On 20 August, while at the police station, SW wrote that she "did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange" but that "the police were keen on getting their hands on him".
According to the statement she was "chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him" because she "only wanted him to take [an STD test]".
On 21 August, SW wrote that she "did not want to accuse" Julian Assange "for anything" and that it was the "police who made up the charges (sic)"
On 23 August, SW wrote that it was the police, not herself, who started the whole thing.
On 26 August, AA wrote that they ought to sell their stories for money to a newspaper.
On 28 August, AA wrote that they had a contact on the biggest Swedish tabloid and SW wrote that their lawyer negotiated with the tabloid.
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goe...
