No you didn’t. The article you provided is clear that no official statement was made that he definitely isn’t prosecuted:
“We have repeatedly asked the Department of Justice to tell us what the status of the investigation was with respect to Mr. Assange,” said Barry J. Pollack, a Washington attorney for Assange. “They have declined to do so. They have not informed us in any way that they are closing the investigation or have made a decision not to bring charges against Mr. Assange.
Perhaps you should take a look at the timeline of events. Do you know when the prosecution of Manning started and when he fled to the embassy?
Yes, he was presidential candidate at the time. If one of the half a dozen politicians in a country deemed serious contender to the highest office says he wants to kill you and doesn’t get serious opposition one shouldn’t take that serious?
I’d think there were an incidents this year since january that taught us that you better believe the things politicians say …
On a similar vein articles like this appeared 2010:
To summ it up: Yes, there were several indications at the time - press pieces, public opinion, statements by politicians - that the USA prepared something rather unpleasant (assassination, extradition, indictment) for Assange.
I have an inkling that no argument/link/whatever presented here will convince you so I’m not going to make further effort.
Two paras from the article you linked to from the WaPo in 2013.
The officials stressed that a formal decision has not been made, and a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks remains impaneled, but they said there is little possibility of bringing a case against Assange, unless he is implicated in criminal activity other than releasing online top-secret military and diplomatic documents.
Seems to me the article uses an anonymous official source. Generally I dismiss “anonymous official sources” as there are no consequences to misleading or being wrong. Often its just to plant a story with a friendly journo. I also note that the “unless” is a big enough exception to drive a truck through. Conspiracy for example, could amount to a separate criminal activity than just releasing documents.
WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said last week that the anti-secrecy organization is skeptical “short of an open, official, formal confirmation that the U.S. government is not going to prosecute WikiLeaks.” Justice Department officials said it is unclear whether there will be a formal announcement should the grand jury investigation be formally closed.
“We have repeatedly asked the Department of Justice to tell us what the status of the investigation was with respect to Mr. Assange,” said Barry J. Pollack, a Washington attorney for Assange. “They have declined to do so. They have not informed us in any way that they are closing the investigation or have made a decision not to bring charges against Mr. Assange.
How can I reach your conclusion from the piece you cited? Particularly when another AG believes the cited legal hurdles are not insurmountable after all, admittedly 4 years after this article.
At least a couple of women accused him of rape or in acting without their consent, including him inserting his penis into a woman while she was asleep, without a condom (if I’m recalling correctly), and instead of cooperating with investigators (and perhaps working to clear his name), he ran and hid, claiming it was all a plot for the US government to get his hands on him. Because us women do nothing but lie about sex, of course.
From what I have read Assange stayed in Sweden to cooperate with the investigation for 5 weeks (my memory may be faulty). No further interview was requested in that time and he was allowed to leave. Ms Ny issued the European arrest warrant after he left. How long should he have stayed in Sweden to avoid being described as running and hiding?
What seems particularly odd to me is that in the last seven years Sweden has questioned forty-four people in the UK in connection with police investigations. Why make Assange look like a special case?
That said, I think that if there is a case against him the Swedish prosecutor should definitely pursue it, particularly if that is the wish of the women who accused him - which seems to be the case for at least one of the women. Im very surprised that Swedish law does not allow for trials in absentia.
They claim that there is some form of fast track extradition in Sweden that could make extradition easier.
That Sweden do in fact want to interview Assange, and have done so outside of Sweden in similar (or even more serious) cases.
That the Swedish government does have the power to block a prospective US extradition.
And finally, I wanted to ask: If both Sweden and the UK have to give consent to a second extradition, then could the UK Home Office (which IIRC from the previous Gary McKinnon case does have the power to block an extradition) not pledge to block it instead?"
