And current nutjob. Check out his tweets/blogs around the time of the attempted Skripal assassination.
His questioning here is clearly in bad faith. Assange successfully evaded justice on most of his charges in Sweden because they have a statute of limitations. It's not something to celebrate.
The situation with Assange is all public record. Obama DoJ didn't pursue extradition, Trump DoJ did.
Separately to this, Assange was suspected of sexual offences in Sweden, most of which have now expired. Connected to those charges, he committed an offence under the Bail Act in the UK for which he has now been convicted.
Anyone arguing that USA was intending to extradite Assange in 2010 is misinformed or arguing in bad faith. Only Sweden wanted to extradite him in 2010 because they had strong evidence he had committed a sexual offence in their jurisdiction.
Murray is interesting - he's intelligent and well-informed, but he leans so heavily against the UK intelligence services that he's unable to spot situations where they're probably not the villain. Like the whole Skripal case.
He regards "bellingcat" as an enemy; they are the supposedly independent blogger producing OSINT that showed the Russian missile launcher used to shoot down MH-17. These days I'm suspicious of people defending the argument that this wasn't Russia.
Calling Murray a "nutjob" is not conducive to a well-informed discussion about touchy subjects. His last summary of the Skripal case is [1], and while certainly controversial, hardly a "nutjob".
He was removed from his ambassadorship to Uzbekistan because he protested against human rights violations in Uzbekistan. This may not be what an ambassador should do, but displays integrity.
His questioning here is clearly in bad faith. Assange successfully evaded justice on most of his charges in Sweden because they have a statute of limitations. It's not something to celebrate.
The situation with Assange is all public record. Obama DoJ didn't pursue extradition, Trump DoJ did.
Separately to this, Assange was suspected of sexual offences in Sweden, most of which have now expired. Connected to those charges, he committed an offence under the Bail Act in the UK for which he has now been convicted.
Anyone arguing that USA was intending to extradite Assange in 2010 is misinformed or arguing in bad faith. Only Sweden wanted to extradite him in 2010 because they had strong evidence he had committed a sexual offence in their jurisdiction.
---
Downvoters - did I get something wrong?