The Americans can't stand for their undemocratic hypocritical BS to be exposed for the rest of the world to see. An individual like Assange who puts the truth out there has to be delt with in no uncertain terms.

I once asked a well know communists and union official, while have a few in a Sydney pub; What's the difference between the Soviet Union and America? His reply was interesting; The Soviets are full of BS, and they know it, the Americans are full of BS, but they don't know it. Three parts pissed, but spoke the truth.

"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. "

Foxy, I know your ABC source has made this assertion. And at the time that might have been arguable - especially in the Obama-is-a-god crowd.

But the fact is that a sealed indictment against Assnage has been held by the US Grand Jury since 2011. It remained sealed and unused because the US couldn't get access to the man himself. It was nonetheless held ready for the time it could be used. Obama didn't decide against prosecution, they just recognised that prosecution wasn't possible at that time. I know the subtlety of that difference will elude many.

The claims that this will affect other media is made-up and self-serving. Assange isn't charged with publishing stolen information (not a crime). He's charged with assisting in the theft (a crime).

Bazz wrote: " The sex was consensual and the
charge was because he did not wear a condom."

Not true..as in utterly wrong.

The one remaining charge involves this incident. Assange and a women go to her place. They have consensual sex. But he wants to have sex without a condom. She refuses and he eventually puts one on. Next morning she awakes to find him inside her without a condom ie having unprotected sex fully knowing the women had refused that the previous night. That's a crime in any civilised community. (note:that's the women story so not yet proven).
If such a thing had been done by someone like Bolt the only questions being asked would be where to build the gallows. But St Julian gets a pass from the woke crowd. The woman should just take one for the team.

mhaze,

I can see that you are a bit emotional about these
issues. I don't mean to upset you.

There are two separate issues being discussed.

As I stated previously - if a man flees a country
based on a credible rape allegation, he needs to answer
that charge in a court of law.

I don't have a problem with that.

The second issue is the one dealing with the US accusing
Assange with "conspiracy to commit computer intrusion."
Alleging that he assisted Manning in cracking a password
to help her infiltrate Pentagon computers and down
load material to share with WikiLeaks.

This was what the Obama found problematic. We have yet to
see what the final results of what the Trump Administration
does with this will be.

Personally I tend to think that it may open up a Pandora's
Box - seeing as other sources have also published this
material. But, who knows how this will all pan out.

Foxy,

That the FBI has a credible email / text trail to prove their case is more that sufficient to charge him with conspiracy to commit espionage.

The decision to lay charges does not lie with the President, it lies with the AG.

Hero

Foxy, the day you upset me, other by making inane errors of fact, is the day I'll give it away.

Its nice to see you've now dropped the utterly nonfactual claims that Assange was being pursued for what he did in 2016. Glad you caught and you're welcome.

Now for some more education...." I tend to think that it may open up a Pandora's Box - seeing as other sources have also published this
material."

Publishing isn't the issue. Once data is stolen then, under US law, its lawful to publish that data. This principle goes all the way back to at least the times of the Pentagon Papers. So none of the other outlets who published the stuff Bradley Manning stole after he'd passed it on to them, are in jeopardy. Equally Wilileaks isn't in legal trouble for doing so either. The problem is that the US government (Obama's government) beleived that Assange had encouraged him (Manning) to steal and may have provided material support in that theft. That's a very different thing to just publishing. That's why Assange is desperate to avoid a US trial