A rather long but rather interesting document released by Julian Assange putting across his side of things. Lots of rumour and conjecture in many of his points regard the USA's efforts to get him extradited and charged, but definitely believable to a degree:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...nce-statement/

" I went to Sweden on 11 August 2010. During my stay, I met a woman (hereinafter called ”SW”). On the evening of 16 August, 2010 she invited me to her home. During the night and in the morning we had consensual sexual intercourse on several occasions."

The only way his statement would have been credible is if he had then gone on to say:

"But I did not wear a condom during the morning tryst, even though I had every reason to think she would want him to; nor did I seek her consent before initiating unprotected sex with her ... So I realise I am prima facie a rapist under Swedish and English law and will immediately leave the Ecuadorian embassy and surrender myself to the authorities to face the consequences of my reckless sexual misadventure and bail jumping."

The man left Sweden and refused to return as he had promised to do; he broke the trust of those who posted bail for him; and if he was so terrified of extradition, why fear it in Sweden when he was in jail and under house arrest in Britain without being molested?

I don't think anyone in these forums can make credible statements as to what occurred.

Indeed. IIRC the lady in question, her statement is relatively credible and doesn't fit the narrative of the authorities.

The moment Trump is inaugurated, Assange needs to step out of the embassy and hand himself in.

Trump will not extradite him, he will be able to face justice like a normal citizen.

Why trump is no friend of his.

No surprise that there's not a single mention of it in the mainstream media today.

Assange definitely has questions to answer, but it would still be interesting to see an unbiased journalist or two (if there is such thing) to see how some of his claims stand up. Most interestingly have sweden purposefully not questioned him when they've had every opportunity to do so, has the swedish prosecutor broke swedish rules in not doing so, have the US govt really committed that much resource to getting Assange silenced (i think so), along with the claims of how closely the swedish ruling elite are with the americans. There's certainly a lot of Western countries that want wikileaks to be silenced forever.

I don't particularly warm to Assange, but any organisation that puts out into the public domain what our govt is doing in our name is unfortunately a good thing right now because i don't think many western govts can be trusted to act in either our best interests or the best interests of the countries they involve themselves with. Be it in Syria, in Iraq, in Libya, our relationship with Saudi Arabia................ well the list really is quite long.

The basic facts are not in dispute. IIRC, Assange admitted initiating unprotected sex with Miss W, knowing that she preferred condoms to be used; whether or not he thought she was asleep or only 'half asleep' is pretty much irrelevant. Penetration without consent and without reason to believe you have consent for it is rape under English law and Swedish law.

Indeed on all counts. What is remarkable is that so many people do really actually know these things, do really actually know that 'stuff' just doesn't add up right, yet will not leave the comfort zone of 'anti-Assange' or 'anti-Russia' or 'anti... you name it'... while further promoting we (the west) are always the good guys and don't poke people with sticks nor undertake some pretty nasty (outrageous or even criminal) actions.

Nope, 'tis true.