I didnt specify charges. I specified circumstances. I believe the charge is “lesser degree rape”. But I dont know if you dispute the circumstances which do seem relevant to me. But you are right - he is not charged cos he is wanted for questioning. Not that makes your summary look so much better.
Sorry - you mean no one in US has charged Assange? I guess you dismiss the possibility of a sealed indictment.
Wikipedia.
“…WikiLeaks released the Manning material, US authorities began investigating WikiLeaks and Assange personally with a view to prosecuting them under the Espionage Act of 1917.[121] In November 2010 US Attorney-General Eric Holder said there was “an active, ongoing criminal investigation” into WikiLeaks.[122] It emerged from legal documents leaked over the ensuing months that Assange and others were being investigated by a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia.[123][124][125] An email from an employee of intelligence consultancy Strategic Forecasting, Inc. (Stratfor) leaked in 2012 said, “We have a sealed indictment on Assange.”[126] The US government denies the existence of such an indictment.[127][128]”
Its clear that there is an interest in prosecuting Assange in the US. Do you doubt if he was in the custody of a US ally that they might institute such proceedings quite quickly? After all, its not like Chelsea Manning was treated leniently. One might persuasively argue that the US has revealed a strong preference for punishing Assange.
Ok so lets agree that you are familiar with them. If so, you have summarized them in a way which seems pejorative and unreasonable. More to the point, if you could point to an occasion where Wikileaks has published false material or lied about their sources go ahead. Cos isnt that the underlying point? Assange could after all be a Rapist (of a special Swedish sort) and still tell the truth. Or he might not be a rapist and could be lying.
Personally I don’t see how it matters if the material came from the Russians if it is true. However if it does matter to you, then having the “journalist” who released the material tell you it didn’t come from Russians might give you a moments pause, regardless of the entirely predictable number of ad hominem attacks leveled at Assange. What he is saying adversely affects the chances of a very important person and a whole class of very important people winning an important election. I can see good reason why they might suggest he is not credible. Or to paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies “they would say that wouldn’t they?”.
Then again you might not experience any moments pause. To me it does all look a bit questionable given I have yet to see one specific email pointed to as false. But once again feel free to correct me.
Feel free to explain the “cheap debate trick”. I dont see it.
Also feel free not to. Its a nominally free country.
