|
|
|
|
|
|
by cmdkeen
3395 days ago
|
|
|
And there your are using assertion as truth "If he had the guarantee that he would not be extradited he would go to Sweden immediately." is completely unproven. Especially as Sweden cannot guarantee something that has not been asked for. There is also the inconvenient fact that the UK has to approve further extradition, and has in the past proven quite happy to extradite people to the US - unless Assange suddenly developers Aspergers and becomes the darling of the press which is unlikely. So why was he living, and happy to stay in the UK, if he was concerned with extradition? Given the whole 5 Eyes setup surely the UK should be a much more dangerous location than Sweden? As I have to point out every time this pops up - Assange has been through the entire appeal chain of the UK courts arguing his case and he has been rejected at every stage. The courts are fiercely independent (see recent Brexit coverage) and have a history of standing up to the government of the day when it comes to extradition. |
|
|
Are we at a point where we should simply put this to third-party researcher?
Let me add my own facts that several third-party lawyers stated in the very first days that this kind of she-said-he-said has no chance to ever result in a conviction, and that the prosecutor is behavior in a oddly way for stating that the case has a strong chance for conviction (all the evidence was leaked and public). She said she was half-asleep, he said she was awake, and on that we got a rape charge of lesser degree, which in average do not even give jail time. No witnesses, no physical evidence, no collaborating-anything for either side. The prosecutor main argument to the media is that Assange claims are not believable because he did not agree to go to Sweden.
This case is the highest cost vs crime severity ever done by Sweden and the UK. It might even be the highest in Europe. Why is so much money being spent on this specific case and not others?