Sweden reopens rape case, plans to request Assange extradition

Can you imagine: Chelsea Manning accuses Julian Assange of sexual assault, going back to their Wikileaks days. OMG it would be the perfect storm. Media meltdown.

1 Like

When the Suidaean Air Force has exercises over the Infernal Hockey Rink

1 Like

Methinks I will never tire of that picture of that smug asshole lecturing a bunch of men who aren’t paying any attention to him while they carry him out of the embassy.


Assange, like his supporters Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning Edward Snowden, John Kiriakou, William Binney and virtually every other heroic government whistleblower of note, has been ruthlessly smeared by the global media with, in Assange’s case at least 29 (!) different falsehoods being repeated ad infinitum until the average person believes some or all of them to be true… This article is the best deep dive into the full list:

In particular, the whole story of the alleged (but never charged with anything) “rape” case should be examined with a critical eye that seems to be mostly lacking in this comment thread. Worth noting the author is herself a victim of multiple sexual assaults.

And of course, Ecuador’s granting of asylum had nothing to do with protecting an alleged rapist and everything to do with protecting Assange from unjust prosecution by the U.S. government:

People who claim Assange was “hiding from rape charges” are necessarily implicitly making two transparently absurd claims: one, that Assange had no reason to fear US extradition, and two, that Ecuador was lying about its official reasons for granting him asylum — that in fact the Correa government was just in the business of protecting people from rape charges for some weird reason.

For its part, the Ecuadorian government was crystal clear in its official statement about the reasons it was providing Assange asylum, saying that “there are serious indications of retaliation by the country or countries that produced the information disclosed by Mr. Assange, retaliation that can put at risk his safety, integrity and even his life,” and that “the judicial evidence shows clearly that, given an extradition to the United States, Mr. Assange would not have a fair trial, he could be judged by a special or military court, and it is not unlikely that he would receive a cruel and demeaning treatment and he would be condemned to a life sentence or the death penalty, which would not respect his human rights.”

1 Like

Whatever Assange may have feared, what he did flee was charges of rape and sexual assault, and whatever Equador may have felt was the reason for sheltering him, what they did shelter him from was exactly those charges.


Since there were never any charges against Assange, ever, you are (perhaps inadvertently) repeating a completely false smear.

This is a good representation of the power of cognitive dissonance. It’s much easier to pretend to yourself that Assange is being prosecuted for rape and sexual assault (even though neither women alleged rape and a senior prosecutor dropped the case, saying the evidence “disclosed no crime at all”) than that the United States is acting to imprison a journalist who revealed multiple crimes and misdemeanors perpetrated by the U.S war machine. I suspect neither the lack of supporting evidence nor the wealth of countervailing evidence can change your mind.

The fact that Assange was perfectly willing to travel to Sweden and see the investigation through is completely devastating to the “he’s hiding from rape charges” smear, and it casts serious doubt on the “he’s a rapist” smear as well.

1 Like

And of course once he’s been defined as a Hero™ he is perfect and heroic in all things. Anything less than utter worship is a “smear” or “slander”. If he were Donny Two Scoops it would be “Fake News” and anyone who accuses him a priori an Enemy of the People.

It is possible for someone to do great things and still do bad things. Assange has done some great things and some really shitty things. It is the duty of the Swedish government to decide if one of those shitty things was rape. He jumped bail to avoid facing sexual assault and rape charges as well as the possibility of being sent to the US. Give him his day in Court to clear or condemn him for those.


You are repeating several smears, each of which is soundly debunked in the article I linked above. Please cite facts instead. What shitty things did Assange do? (Evidence-free assertions don’t count as facts.)

1 Like

I once had a girl
Or should I say she once had me
She showed me her room
Isn’t it good Norwegian wood?

Ok it was Swedish - but it was consensual - OK?

For all the Assange haters, take notice that the CIA changed the “Assange versus Sweden” Wikipedia page two days ago (from April 16th 2019). The biggest criticisms of Wikipedia entries is that the CIA controls pages like “Assange” and accordingly dishes out the information to fit their and the State Department’s desired narrative (i.e. Assange bad and is a Russian secret super agent). On the “Assange versus Sweden” Wikipedia page (not on the “Assange” page) up until two days ago (from April 16th) the entry read (copied and pasted by me on a different post) " On 20 August 2010, two women, a 26-year-old living in Enköping and a 31-year-old living in Stockholm,[4][5] jointly went to the Swedish police not seeking to bring charges against Assange but in order to track him down and persuade him to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases after their separate sexual encounters with him." And now the entry reads (on April 18th – and the page has since been further redacted): “On 20 August 2010, two women, a 26-year-old living in Enköping and a 31-year-old living in Stockholm,[4][5] went to the Swedish police.[6][7] The police told them that they could not simply tell Assange to take a test, but that their statements would be passed to the prosecutor.[8]” So, the two women never claimed to be raped, and if people would’ve been following this for the past seven years people would know that the women also said in interviews, seven years ago, that they were coerced into making false accusations against Assange – but these interviews have since been scrubbed from the Internet. You all like believing in super villains a bit too much. The US has almost 900 military bases around the world (Russia has two), and the US media gave trump over two billion dollars in free media. Russia and it’s two Ruble investment in the 2016 election (which some of that went to Hillary and Bernie ads) sure got a lot for its money if it was able to win Trump the election. If this is the case shouldn’t we let Russia take over America? Ha! Neither Trump nor Assange is the villain here. I think most people need to take a better look at themselves in the mirror. Cheers from Dresden!

1 Like

Many very wealthy Americans are benefiting from the Trump administration. The Koch brothers for example.

You make an important and very interesting point. Whether the Russian government is more repressive and less truthful than the Russian government depends on what kind of American you are. If you were a native American or an African American, you could easily argue that the American government has spent the last 350 years (approx) trying to genocide you, or held you in the largest forced Labour camp in the world and claim you and your kids as property. Both governments have lied for various reasons over the last 350 years. Of course the nature of both governments has also changed radically in that time too. Wouldnt it be better to ask about the particular circumstances and whether they have an incentive to lie?

Mueller has asserted that the source was Russian. However none of these assertions have been tested, because we cannot prosecute the alleged perpetrators and for national security reasons (in the case of Concord Management). Some associates of Wikileaks argue that they had knowledge of the transfer and the source and made themselves available to Mueller. They argue that the failure to interview them taints the assertions regarding Russian government and Wikileaks. Dont they have a point? Even if you don’t believe them, wouldn’t an unbiased investigator interview them?

I don’t trust either government. I know the Putin government is happy to lie on occasion. I also know the US government has no problem lying either (Gulf of Tonkin to name just one). However I tend to focus on the US cos I live here and I cant influence the Russian governments actions directly.

In Sweden, having sex with someone who doesn’t consent (because they are half asleep) is rape. Having sex with someone who consents based on condom use which you subsequently remove is a sexual assault ( I think). That was the basis for the allegations of rape against Assange, It seems reasonable to me and I think the world would be a better place if the rest of the world adopted the Swedish approach.

The change in the wikipedia page is curious though. I wonder if it will be changed back?


I read the articles. A lot of hagiography. A little slut-shaming. Plenty of “He is Good so he must be innocent.” Let him stand trial and be acquiited or convicted on the merits of his case, not your personal prejudgements.


Also, the whole narrative Assange and his supporters have been spinning, of the rape allegations being a nefarious honeypot trick to draw him into Sweden so he can be extradited to USA, is complete bullshit from start to finish. The UK is and has always been way more likely to extradite him than Sweden, so fleeing Sweden to UK, if he’s concerned about extradition, makes no sense. It only makes sense if he’s trying to avoid having to face consequences for his actions.


The women, like stated in the wiki-page before it was changed, had no desire to press charges of rape. They were told they had to press charges if they wanted him to be forced to take a STD test. Also in the interviews that have since disappeared from the Internet the women said they were coerced into filing the ‘false charge’ of rape. Also, Sweden has no desire to reopend a case that it already decided has no merit. It is England that has requested the charges to be reopened. Why would England care? Most people here are too lost in their hatred of Donald Trump to see that this is all a sham. I have no love for Donny, but to allow such an attack on freedom of the press is almost as bad as allowing the Government to spy on us because we have been attacked by terrorists…wait a minute we did that one already too.

1 Like

I was familiar with the backstory regarding the two Swedish ladies. I didnt know that the UK had requested Sweden reopen the case. Seems odd.

If the associates of Wikileaks have compelling arguments about non-Russian sources, they’re free to present them. They should have strong allies for releasing this info. Trump and Putin both dispute Russia being the source of the hacking. They are arguably two of the most powerful people on the planet. Both have some influence in news organizations, RT and Fox, for example. If credible alternatives to Russia as culprits exist, it’d be interesting to read the facts that support the conclusion that it was not Russia. I have read both RT and Fox, and have not seen credible data suggesting it was not Russia.

Mueller report should be unredacted and examined critically, but Mueller is not the one redacting and suppressing his report.

I live outside DC, and have friends and family routinely go into the city to protest various events. Including 70 something year old Mom. When I have spoken to Russians, they do not have the robust freedom to protest similarly. Even Russians who like Putin seem aware of different degrees of freedom in the two countries. Of course, American treatment of Native Americans and African Americans is appalling, current treatment of undocumented Americans is appalling.
Alternatives to Putin’s leadership has not been evident in the last 20 years. Opponents have been jailed. While there are arguments the Reps and Dems are identical, and only rich people make successful runs for the presidency, it seems far closer to democracy in this country. “Lock her up” is a real strategy in Russia, not just a vicious threat.


Any luck turning those up in the Internet Archive?

First of all, thank you for your observations.

They dont have compelling arguments. They are allegedly eye-witnesses and they dispute the Mueller characterization. They have done so publicly already. That said, this doesn’t prove they are not lying, nor that they may not have been duped. Neither are good reasons to ignore eye-witnesses.

The Russian constitution does give the right to protest. In practice that right is massively curtailed by different arms of the Russian state. But I also recall the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York. Non-violent protesters were violently attacked by the NYPD in a number of ways which were widely documented. They were arrested and held in pens for over 24 hours and then charges were in most cases dropped. To be clear, my point is not to draw an equivalence between Russia and the West. I make note of this cos I am often amazed that this ill-treatment of protesters drops out of people’s memories unless they got the pepper spray in their face. My original point is that just cos Russia is less free or democratic than the US, this in itself doesn’t constitute evidence that the Russian state interfered meaningfully in US elections. Personally I dont think Facebook posts count, but others feel differently.

I have lived in both the US and Russia. At the time I lived in Russia I hated it, but in retrospect it had a lot to recommend it. I liked Russians and apart from the weather Moscow was an ok place to live. People were interesting and liked foreigners. And their racism was sort of refreshing compared to US racism. Very direct, and but much less substantive. Although it was very scary dealing with their police, I got less of the “Why are you grinning, boy?” BS I get over here. To put into context I am a 52year POC. I am surprised more Americans are not embarrassed by State troopers. But make no mistake - Russia is dirt poor, and backwards. Its a shithole. I just happen to like living in its capital city, which is much less of a shithole than its provinces.

Russia is not Putin or its oligarchs, anymore than America is Zuckerberg, The Kochs or Bezos. Even the Russian state is less dominated by Putin than people in the US generally imagine. But it ain’t democratic and there is massive scope for it to be a better place for its citizens.

If I had a subsidiary point is that this idea of dualism between the US and Russia is silly. Russia is a poor, barely functioning shithole of a country. Its not a peer competitor. We shoudnt be comparing ourselves to that shithole. I would strongly suggest you question the motives of any US or UK politician telling you to look “over there” at whats happening in their crappy but big country. Its usually to direct your attention away from things happening over here.