Yep SM. I have to agree.

If St Julian hadn't broken any US laws then they wouldn't have anything to charge him on.

I think that's why I've never been charged by the government of Outer Mongolia ie I haven't broken any of their laws.

On the other hand, I sort of feel that sticking your unprotected cock in a sleeping women who'd told you the previous night that if its not on, its not on...well I'm pretty sure that'd be illegal in most parts of the civilised world.

probably Julian Assange's greatest achievement knowingly or unknowingly was to stop Hilary from becoming the US President. Hopefully some of his work will bring her to justice for her deceit and lies.

Gentlemen,

Julian Assange is not the most sympathetic of
characters. If a man flees a country based on
a credible rape allegation, he needs to answer
that charge in a court of law. Like John
Jarratt the actor did recently.

If a government alleges that a person or
organisation has conspired with a foreign power
to undermine that nation's electoral process it
should have the integrity to make that case in
public in a judicial proceeding.

But if a government uses such an allegation simply
as a pretext to try to silence a publisher of
information - and that is what WikiLeaks is -
it exposes potential or actual crimes by the government
itself, and the government needs to be held to
account first.

Every news organisation in the free world should be
terrified of an Assange prosecution under US law.

"If a government alleges that a person or
organisation has conspired with a foreign power
to undermine that nation's electoral process it
should have the integrity to make that case in
public in a judicial proceeding."

Oh man!

The US governments beef with Assange has exactly zero to do with what happened in 2016. Indeed the US was trying to extradite Assange before 2016. Its all about what he did with Bradley Manning when he stole US secrets and had them released causing significant detriment to the US security and probably a number of deaths. The issue is whether Assange merely received the stolen data or encouraged and assisted the theft.

I know there's a class of people for whom anything and everything is about Trump. But this is about what happened during Obama's term. The theft happened then. The indictment was initiated then. The unsealed indictment was created then. The Trump legal authorities are merely considering, should the opportunity occur, whether to follow-up on the charges levelled by Obama.

What Assange did or didn't do in regards to the Hillary crimes, has no bearing on any of this.

But I'm sure that there'll be massive numbers of people, including left-wing media, who'll try very hard to forget that it all is down to Obama and try very hard to spin it as Trump's baby.

The Obama Administration as I stated in my
opening post did look at the possibility of charging
Assange but decided that a prosecution under the
Espionage Act would be problematic. That it might
open the door for journalists and the Guardian, the
New York Times, Le Monde, El Pais and Der Speigel to
also be charged.

Manning down loaded 4 databases from US departments
and agencies between January and May 2010, the
indictment said, with the information being
provided to WikiLeaks. Selected and edited material from
WikiLeaks were published by the above listed media outlets.

The rape charge etc is a diversion. The sex was consensual and the
charge was because he did not wear a condom. It is a oddity of Swedish law.
I thought Sweden would be more concerned about the migrant rape problem.

The real question is that how does the US impose its laws in foreign countries.
That is the ONLY question to be resolved.