General Discussion

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)

68. Saying there is an impediment is not a lie.

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 02:29 PM

Mar 2015

Stating that it is against Swedish law seems to be. Those statements aren't the same. Assange needs to answer questions. This will be very interesting. If they show up, question him and try to arrest him, will Ecuador harbor someone with an arrest warrant for possible charges as have been discussed. I can fully understand why the prosecutor wouldn't want the interview to occur at the embassy. That is common sense. That doesn't mean it goes against Swedish law. I want to see him questioned on the accusations and see what happens. I am not a part of the cult of personality where there is the belief that his is innocent. Accusations such as this should have the upmost of priority. After his lack of actions with respect to Chelsea Manning it is very easy for one to see his complete lack of morals. I highly doubt anyone would be surprised if some of the claims made against him were true. Seems like we might have a standoff between two highly questionable characters. Seems a little odd that people think the prosecutor has been doing this for this long without approval.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

421 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Swedish Prosecutor Lied As Charged. Admits No Legal Impediment to London Interview w/Assange. [View all] sabrina 1 Mar 2015 OP

On the other thread DUers suddenly have amnesia that they ever believed Ny's lies riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #1

There is way, way too much evidence that they did indeed claim it 'was against Swedish Law' to sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #2

As with Snowden, the important thing is to continue to maintain a vilification narrative. Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #4

Yep. LuvNewcastle Mar 2015 #242

THIS MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #280

Oh I remember. You were pretty mercilessly (and erroneously) attacked. riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #5

Yes, you are correct. Any thread with the name Assange in it, was sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #18

The simply misinformed were willfully thus erronis Mar 2015 #49

You are right, as it turns out. Now they are attempting to attempting to move the goalposts sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #150

Kinda reminds of the rally for war against Syria back in 2013 Scootaloo Mar 2015 #180

lots were cheering for war awoke_in_2003 Mar 2015 #208

I wonder why people allow others to do their thinking for them. We on the Left were not the kind to sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #212

A lie travels half way around the world before truth gets it's pants on. zeemike Mar 2015 #74

I remember that, and that it was always the same group of posters whose screen names escape me... 1monster Mar 2015 #252

You are correct, it IS always the same few. As for Snowden, Greenwald, and now just about sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #256

One of the things I love about DU hifiguy Mar 2015 #98

Indeed--so this thread, where the OP is debunked below, won't be scrubbed. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #131

The prosecutor LIED and has now been forced to admit that lie. She, iow, has been DEBUNKED. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #247

Brentspeak: "right-wingers who pose as liberals on liberal Zorra Mar 2015 #160

'Allegations' btw, there have no charges filed against Assange. And those allegations began in sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #276

Nice catch, Sabrina. Maedhros Mar 2015 #3

It isn't a good catch---sabrina didn't include that Ny wasn't directed by the courts to try a London msanthrope Mar 2015 #88

Good catch. Once again, Assange's fans put incorrect info out there. stevenleser Mar 2015 #219

Shhhhh! zappaman Mar 2015 #223

The Prosecutor and her fans LIED. For years. Feel free to explain why NO CHARGES sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #233

*LOL* 99Forever Mar 2015 #257

So, is your claim that the November ruling was a surprise to Ny, MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #246

That is exactly what they are claiming. Having no response to the LIES told by the Prosecutor for sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #249

Manny...your question to me is rude, and ill-defined given that Sweden is msanthrope Mar 2015 #261

There never was any 'legal impediment' to interviewing Assange in London. Is it rude to tell the sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #307

My question is... rude? MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #319

Yes....using, the faux-Socratic method with me is rude. msanthrope Mar 2015 #388

No, I'm looking for clarification. MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #396

And I'm not your tutor. Spider's post is referenced downthread. msanthrope Mar 2015 #399

Isn't that just saying, in other words, what the OP says? 1monster Mar 2015 #266

Sssshhh, we are in the process of attempting to create amnesia regarding the years long false claims sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #314

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Mar 2015 #6

The right thing for them to do now, including all the Right Wing 'Journalists' who shouted from the sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #8

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Mar 2015 #12

It will take a little time to try to come up with a way to twist these facts sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #24

already happening ND-Dem Mar 2015 #221

So after all that happens, does he then surrender to Swedish authorities? hack89 Mar 2015 #23

That isn't the question. 'After all this will the lying Swedish Prosecutor FINALLY file sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #32

Here's a thread from 2012, where Spider Jerusalem explains the Swedish legal process to you tammywammy Mar 2015 #45

In post #216 SJ gets the "facts" wrong again by repeating Ny's lie riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #50

Amazing, isnt it? Even with the evidence of the egregious lies told by the Prosecutor and her sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #245

The free legal advice from our very important DU experts is worth every penny. pa28 Mar 2015 #72

Lol! It certainly is a lesson on why the internet's legal experts should always be taken with a sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #251

Yes, I created an OP here recently that attracted many experts in the finer points of Swedish law. pa28 Mar 2015 #409

As someone said in this thread, the proper thing for all the 'legal experts' to do now would be to sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #410

Yes, sabrina ... NanceGreggs Mar 2015 #418

Don't worry, I don't give legal advice on the internet. I simply report facts from those who sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #419

That response ... NanceGreggs Mar 2015 #420

Of note--the prosecutor was ordered by the courts to try to interview and arrest Assange in London-- msanthrope Mar 2015 #92

Of further note. The Prosecutor lied by claiming she could not interview Assange in London forcing sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #260

Are you suggesting that the Swedish Court is bending the established law in this case, 1monster Mar 2015 #274

Good question. It appears there never was any legal impediment to conducting this interview in sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #309

I think it's a bit more nuanced than that.....I think the court recognized msanthrope Mar 2015 #389

I know the Swedish Process. Now explain why this Prosecutor DIDN'T know it. Why did she claim sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #130

You've been given the Court of Appeals link a few times now. Is it that you don't understand msanthrope Mar 2015 #134

When did the law change? When did they decide that THEY COULD interview Assange in London after sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #141

Did you not read the article on the Court of Appeals decision and look at the date? That would msanthrope Mar 2015 #143

Was their excuse for not filing Charges against Assange 'There is a legal impediment' to sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #148

Again, Sabrina, if you don't read the material offered, I can't help you. As the other attorney on msanthrope Mar 2015 #153

Was this used an excuse for years, when it was not true, as many of us stated? sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #156

Again, Sabrina, I and others have pointed out the Court of Appeals November 2014 decision. msanthrope Mar 2015 #161

Again, msanthrope, why did YOU cling to what we know now was an egregious lie told by the prosecutor sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #235

No. You've linked a news article. Not the Court of Appeals riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #170

Um no.....you're quoting a defense attorney who just had a ruling go against msanthrope Mar 2015 #176

Lol! Then she's on that plane right? She's had 4+ years to prepare riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #182

I'm sure she'll be traveling as soon as Assange agrees to a msanthrope Mar 2015 #186

And receives approval from the UK and Ecuador. n/t tammywammy Mar 2015 #189

Why would the UK refuse approval? They've been spending big bucks LEOs covering Assange to 1monster Mar 2015 #277

Why did she wait nearly five years to make that trip? Why did she LIE? Why did she claim sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #237

There are four charges on his arrest warrant. hack89 Mar 2015 #54

She knows it, but then forgets it the moment that is more convenient. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2015 #126

I know a diversionary tactic when I see one. The question is WHY would anyone on THIS forum sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #328

If everything is as clear as you make it out to be... randome Mar 2015 #338

Lol, still avoiding answering the question. I don't blame you, there is only one answer. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #343

Ny was ordered to question Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy. You know that. randome Mar 2015 #347

I must agree only to facts. And yes, it was 'normal procedure' to interview sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #350

So then you tell us why Ny 'lied' (to use your term). randome Mar 2015 #354

She had to be 'ordered' to finally stop lying as to why she has failed to file charges. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #360

Like Obama, I can wait patiently and let the various players work this out for themselves. randome Mar 2015 #366

You were wrong, can't escape that fact. The 'players'? Well we know there ARE 'players' but I am sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #372

There are no charges filed against Assange. There are 'allegations' many of which sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #236

So tell us in detail how charges are formally filed in the Swedish system hack89 Mar 2015 #239

Is that a serious question?? Do you REALLY not know the difference between sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #248

When Assange is eventually arrested and indicted hack89 Mar 2015 #287

I think you are confusing being charged with being indicted hack89 Mar 2015 #240

Where are the charges that have been filed in Sweden against Assange? sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #275

Who are the bootlickers you speak of? The ones who think a rapist should have a trial? msanthrope Mar 2015 #93

Of course you mean the "alleged" rapist?...Yes? bvar22 Mar 2015 #181

No, rapist. Assange admitted to the acts in the warrant. He just doesn't msanthrope Mar 2015 #183

Actually Sweden has the presumption of innocence riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #188

But I don't. He's a rapist. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #192

Lol. Some "lawyer" (sic) nt riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #205

Well, I know a criminal when I see one. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #229

That sounds like 'woo'. Since not one charge has ever been FILED against Assange.. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #244

You know, bvar22 Mar 2015 #193

Um, no.....just like OJ is a murderer. Assange is a rapist.....and I get to msanthrope Mar 2015 #194

You're really grasping at straws in this thread. bvar22 Mar 2015 #195

+100 ND-Dem Mar 2015 #222

+1000 Puglover Mar 2015 #231

'It IS embarrassing for you to have your whole argument for 4 years shot down'. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #304

The reason you are so...um, intense in this thread.. randome Mar 2015 #310

Lol, so you are looking into your crystal ball again? I suggest you throw it away, it appears to be sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #312

Don't need a crystal ball. randome Mar 2015 #315

Glad you got rid of that crystal ball. Why did she have to be ORDERED to go to London? sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #317

Game. Set. Match. That is one HELL of a question Number23 Mar 2015 #217

The pretzel logic required for rape apologia is stunning. .....imagine, one cannot call msanthrope Mar 2015 #228

'Pretzel logic' thank you, that is a good way to describe the impossible twisting and turning sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #339

So it's not one of those 'legal opinions' you have been providing us with re this case for so long? sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #334

Assange denies those 'allegations' cobbled together with zero evidence to back them up and sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #279

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Mar 2015 #196

Yes, we KNOW that Ny was so ignorant of Swedish Law that after YEARS of lying, or not knowing, sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #254

Succinct, I like it! whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #386

Name them and shame them. Great post. pa28 Mar 2015 #7

Assange has not accepted this offer yet. And I doubt he will hack89 Mar 2015 #26

Why has this lying prosecutor NEVER filed charges in all these years? SHE claimed that sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #35

There are four charges on his arrest warrant. He has been charged. He has not been indicted. hack89 Mar 2015 #58

Wrong, AGAIN. Could you please stop commenting on a case you clearly know nothing about? sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #127

Only judges can issue arrest warrants hack89 Mar 2015 #158

Ahem .... warrants do NOT equal Charges! So, again, where are the charges filed by sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #250

So when Assange is arrested after the interview will he surrender? hack89 Mar 2015 #292

Lol, so you admit finally what you have been trying to deny, there are no charges filed against sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #299

No. Just looking at the most important fact hack89 Mar 2015 #308

Lol, you mean speculating into the future, having had to admit that all the sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #321

So when she does arrest him and file charges hack89 Mar 2015 #322

Thanks for finally admitting that there have never been charges filed against Assange. That took a sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #359

She will interview him. hack89 Mar 2015 #364

Well you've been wrong so far about everything else, so I'm not going to take your speculations sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #365

Really? hack89 Mar 2015 #367

And yet, he voluntarily stayed in Sweden long after he was supposed to leave, voluntarily went to sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #370

Until the prosecutor actually scheduled an interview hack89 Mar 2015 #371

If I were you I would stop while I was only this far behind. Because I might be in the mood to show sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #373

His lawyer testified differently under oath hack89 Mar 2015 #376

What have I been wrong about? hack89 Mar 2015 #368

She has no CASE. THAT is why she doesn't want an interview. I guess you didn't follow the sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #374

You keep believing that hack89 Mar 2015 #377

BBC says he has. pa28 Mar 2015 #36

Good. He will have no more excuses after the interview. hack89 Mar 2015 #57

If we're demanding accountability let's ask the prosecutor to explain her years of lying. pa28 Mar 2015 #66

What difference does that make to Assange? He is not a victim hack89 Mar 2015 #70

She didn't lie. see Msanthropes above posts with link. Nt stevenleser Mar 2015 #220

Are you trying to be funny? And no offense, but msanthrope, sadly, has proven over the years, sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #323

" She said that years ago." wildbilln864 Mar 2015 #63

She testified in court that the interview was the last step before arrest hack89 Mar 2015 #65

ok. n/t wildbilln864 Mar 2015 #67

So why didn't she take that step? THAT is what she lied about! sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #362

Because she has no powers to arrest outside of Sweden hack89 Mar 2015 #363

Has the offer of an interview (from Ny) in the Ecuadoran Embassy even been offered yet? 1monster Mar 2015 #283

Do you know why he made that offer? hack89 Mar 2015 #288

Oh, you have access to Assange's deliberations and his lawyers'? Wow! 1monster Mar 2015 #293

We know he fled Sweden the day after the prosecutor scheduled an interview hack89 Mar 2015 #297

So can we finally get this interview over with Blue_Tires Mar 2015 #9

You're asking the wrong questions. WHY did this prosecutor NOT FILE CHARGES when we know for sure sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #11

Prosecutorial discretion? Blue_Tires Mar 2015 #14

No, Prosecution LIES! She LIED. Is that not clear to you now? I'll be happy to explain sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #17

But prosecutors lie/obfuscate/distort/have convenient memory lapses... Blue_Tires Mar 2015 #34

No prosecutor would DARE to lie about their own LEGAL SYSTEM and expect to get away with it. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #37

They sure as hell lie a lot more often than you're giving credit for... Blue_Tires Mar 2015 #52

So you agree, she lied. Thank you! sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #273

Bravo MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #281

This won't end anything hack89 Mar 2015 #22

What about those four charges on his arrest warrant? hack89 Mar 2015 #20

His lawyer states that they already have his DNA. He is Luminous Animal Mar 2015 #62

Because it's part of the arrest procedure. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #113

They are asking for it again BEFORE any charges Luminous Animal Mar 2015 #142

Er.....yes. As part of the Swedish arrest procedure. They are arresting him. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #145

Er. Yes. They are asking for something they already have. Er. Luminous Animal Mar 2015 #215

Sssshhh, legal experts and all that! No charges, no case, DNA provided VOLUNTARILY YEARS AGO. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #416

The righter they be, the wronger they are. Just another example among many. GoneFishin Mar 2015 #10

Yep. We knew this compromise could have been done years ago LittleBlue Mar 2015 #13

It didn't happen years ago because they never had a case. You can bet everything you have that sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #15

Interesting info, I hadn't heard that LittleBlue Mar 2015 #16

You hadn't heard it because that version of reality hadn't quite coalesced yet. jeff47 Mar 2015 #39

If the UK were US lapdpgs, why embarrass Obama on Syria? LittleBlue Mar 2015 #47

:facepalm: jeff47 Mar 2015 #55

That is politically palatable LittleBlue Mar 2015 #78

:facepalm: again. jeff47 Mar 2015 #119

The UK backed off their 'seeming' willingness to cooperate with the US when sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #295

You know time runs in one direction, right? jeff47 Mar 2015 #403

I stated facts, if you don't like the facts, I can't help you. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #405

This is not good news for Assange hack89 Mar 2015 #21

If this is so terrible for Assange, she would have done this years ago LittleBlue Mar 2015 #25

And do you think Assange will accept this offer? I doubt it. hack89 Mar 2015 #29

According to the BBC, his lawyer has accepted LittleBlue Mar 2015 #30

Will the Prosecutor FINALLY file charges? And surely you know that Assange DID sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #40

He did leave Sweden the day after the prosecutor notified his lawyer of an interview hack89 Mar 2015 #60

Naturally they should travel to another country to question a fugitive from justice BainsBane Mar 2015 #19

^This^ Sheldon Cooper Mar 2015 #31

Well, I don't know... freshwest Mar 2015 #85

Why did the Prosecutor LIE about Swedish Law? sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #41

She did not lie. The statue of limitations are close to expiring. BainsBane Mar 2015 #79

The most important question is: WHY have charges never been filed by the Swedish Prosecutor? sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #152

Because that is Swedish law BainsBane Mar 2015 #168

There ARE NO CHARGES filed against Assange. What are you talking about?? There are allegatons, sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #214

The documents categorically refute your claims BainsBane Mar 2015 #224

Your lack of understanding of this case is astounding. So once again, WHERE ARE THE CHARGES sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #234

Those that hate whistle-blowers live in their states of denial willfully. There is no rhett o rick Mar 2015 #325

And DU's resident Jeff Rosenzweig Mar 2015 #326

Did you disagree with something he said? The FACTS of this case are clear and have been sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #327

Being open to listen to facts is a trait commonly found with liberals. It's a conservative mindset rhett o rick Mar 2015 #331

Yes, and Liberals tend to be interested in facts. I have asked, eg, that the person who sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #332

Yes. Facts. randome Mar 2015 #342

Did I strike a nerve? I notice that you don't offer anything except cute (?) comments. rhett o rick Mar 2015 #329

I think the term "concierge justice" is quite apt. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #164

Why did the prosecutor lie about interviewing Assange in London? She DID lie, and you know it. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #216

How is he being silenced? BainsBane Mar 2015 #225

Rape apologists are gross. zappaman Mar 2015 #226

This thread should shock me....but it doesn't. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #230

Hope the alert on this post fails big time.... bettyellen Mar 2015 #253

it did. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #262

Ridiculous alerts- but they abound in certain threads.... Seems a lot of bettyellen Mar 2015 #265

That is an interesting point. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #269

Yep! You always see some asking others to call out others... bettyellen Mar 2015 #361

See you at 7. zappaman Mar 2015 #264

cool, I'll bring an assortment of salt. The SJW's flavor assortment' bettyellen Mar 2015 #267

No salt needed. I'm bringing the good stuff! zappaman Mar 2015 #270

Oh my. *Throws salt over left shoulder* bettyellen Mar 2015 #272

Who are you calling a 'rape apologist'?? Are you calling ME a 'rape apologist'. Other DUers here? sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #324

I think the post was pretty clear. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #406

Do you speak for Zappaman? If so, then go right ahead and name names. It is NOT sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #407

I speak for no one other than myself. But I think that post was msanthrope Mar 2015 #408

Reserved for those in the rarified air of privilege, unassailable by lessers. freshwest Mar 2015 #385

We love our white libertarian nihilistic heroes here. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #390

Nailed it! n/t freshwest Mar 2015 #392

... SidDithers Mar 2015 #27

So, why do you think the Prosecutor LIED about Swedish Law for so long Sid?? n/t sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #42

I don't think the prosecutor did lie, sabrina... SidDithers Mar 2015 #53

I'm not the one saying 'we can't interview him in London, am I? Why did she say that for so many sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #138

I hope you're not expecting a reasonable response. rhett o rick Mar 2015 #333

I always like to give someone a chance to explain their 'legal opinions'! sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #335

REH-writ! MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #284

I think your "mocking" ROFL has lost it's impact. Just sayin'. nm rhett o rick Mar 2015 #337

But-But-But-The Guy did irreparable harm to the US Government! Octafish Mar 2015 #28

I get your sarcasm. Irreparable Harm To The US Gov! erronis Mar 2015 #51

Know your BFEE: WikiLeaks Stratfor Dump Exposes Continued Secret Government Warmongering Octafish Mar 2015 #104

Wikileaks had to be silenced because they exposed the corruption of the Big Banks. They were about sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #209

Precisely. DeSwiss Mar 2015 #384

It is strange you know in one way. Rex Mar 2015 #121

Ooh, KKKarl is gonna be pissed. Dont call me Shirley Mar 2015 #33

Yep, that is another aspect of this case, Rove's 'advice' to the Swedish Right Wing PM. Not to sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #43

You err in assuming she is not breaking the law. jeff47 Mar 2015 #38

Do you hear yourself?? (Rider asks incredulously) riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #48

Yes, she was ordered to break the law by the judge. jeff47 Mar 2015 #59

Can you.link that a judge ordered the prosecutor to break the law? riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #69

HEre--it's the Court of Appeals decision in November, where the court suggested that msanthrope Mar 2015 #86

Curious, so if she breaks the laws of her own country and arrests him after the interview Rex Mar 2015 #94

Sweden has a very different system from ours. I think what everyone here is missing is that this is msanthrope Mar 2015 #96

I see, I did not think about the fact that he is not only in the UK Rex Mar 2015 #99

I've never had an innocent client behave as Assange has. I've had rapist clients behave like him, msanthrope Mar 2015 #105

I had some rough friends early in life, some innocent and some guilty as hell for various petty Rex Mar 2015 #111

That is exactly correct. Innocent people want it cleared up, right away. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #125

What BS. I've known many innocent people who have finally broken down and accepted 1monster Mar 2015 #306

Assange wanted it cleared up right away, but the Swedish Prosecutor did everything in her power sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #320

If the "rape victim" insists that there was no rape (stipulating that the rape victim is of age and 1monster Mar 2015 #303

Victims don't decide charges or crimes. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #391

Pretty damned hard to win a conviction if the "victim" denies the crime ever happened without 1monster Mar 2015 #395

No......it's not. I've had DV clients go to prison over the objections msanthrope Mar 2015 #400

Yes, and that "the women they've nearly killed" is pretty much the "overwhelming evidence to the 1monster Mar 2015 #413

You've seen none of the evidence. None of it. msanthrope Mar 2015 #414

You are only making things worse for the Prosecutor. She didn't know her own laws? She didn't know sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #157

Sabrina....no one can make you read the 11/14 Court of Appeals decision. And no one can msanthrope Mar 2015 #162

So Sabrina's correct. Ny has been lying this whole time riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #167

Um, no....the court of appeals decision clarified that Ny actually has msanthrope Mar 2015 #173

It also indicates that Ny's a big fat liar riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #185

Liar or not...she's still got the upper hand on James Blond. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #191

Lol!!! We'll see. Who will eat crow? Very interesting.. Nt riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #204

Crow? Is that what they eat in Ecuador? Disgusting! randome Mar 2015 #232

I don't see where that quote implies interviewing Assange elsewhere is against the law? Fumesucker Mar 2015 #241

The decision also discusses the jurisdictional issue of arrest.... msanthrope Mar 2015 #243

Wrong, again. The prosecutor has lied for years. So what now? sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #73

It is irrelevant to Assange. It does not change a thing. There is no "what now" hack89 Mar 2015 #75

Actually, you've been lying for years jeff47 Mar 2015 #122

I, myself, have posted that information to sabrina scores of times. Her narrative does not deviate msanthrope Mar 2015 #135

Many people have. jeff47 Mar 2015 #136

Groundhog Day, Rape Apologia Edition. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #139

The Swedish Prosecutor lied. So what now? sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #64

Now Assange is interview and then arrested. What did you think was going to happen? hack89 Mar 2015 #71

She did not lie BainsBane Mar 2015 #84

Recommend! KoKo Mar 2015 #44

So they're finally going to interview him now, and move the prosecution forward? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #46

Well, he fled Sweden before his scheduled interview there....here, Sweden has already indicated they msanthrope Mar 2015 #91

Tell Assange not to take a drink of the proferred cup of "tea" erronis Mar 2015 #56

So, you're accusing the Obama Administration of wanting to kill him... brooklynite Mar 2015 #61

Because then it sounds all spy-novel-ish! That makes it SO much more true! (nt) jeff47 Mar 2015 #128

James Blond, living in the Ladies' Loo in the embassy.....no one would believe it is I wrote it...nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #137

Saying there is an impediment is not a lie. NCTraveler Mar 2015 #68

K&R DeSwiss Mar 2015 #76

... SidDithers Mar 2015 #199

This is irrelevant as far as Assange is concerned. hack89 Mar 2015 #77

Kick Pharaoh Mar 2015 #80

The lie here is not the prosecutors BainsBane Mar 2015 #81

Also, it wasn't until November that the Swedish courts suggested she try a London interview. msanthrope Mar 2015 #87

But Assange deserves concierge justice BainsBane Mar 2015 #89

Exactly---the OP seems to be arguing that this rapist deserves special treatment. As a criminal msanthrope Mar 2015 #90

Wait! It was November! when the Swedish Court "suggested" that Ny interview Assange in London? 1monster Mar 2015 #311

Then change Swedish law to remove the statute of limitations. mwooldri Mar 2015 #100

You don't understand because you're applying US/UK style law. jeff47 Mar 2015 #133

Change the law? BainsBane Mar 2015 #165

My comment was on Sweden apparently having a statute of limitations... mwooldri Mar 2015 #369

Yeah, I noticed that too cemaphonic Mar 2015 #106

Easy. Until Sweden guarantees he won't be arrested, Assange will continue to obfuscate. randome Mar 2015 #108

What bothers me is making excuses for accused rapists BainsBane Mar 2015 #149

Nyfong, eh? MisterP Mar 2015 #82

Why do you think this will make any difference to Assange? hack89 Mar 2015 #83

It isn't. And Assange won't be arrested. randome Mar 2015 #97

No--I just figured out Ny's fairly brilliant strategy......the Court of Appeals ruling in November msanthrope Mar 2015 #101

Even if Assange delays the interview until after August? randome Mar 2015 #103

He's not going to be able to delay. Ecuador wants him out of that embassy. Interestingly, msanthrope Mar 2015 #109

Because that nefarious Obama will clone it and spread it across the continent! randome Mar 2015 #115

You mean string things along? Hissyspit Mar 2015 #147

Assange is the one stringing this along....like a guilty man. Two years of appeals in the UK msanthrope Mar 2015 #151

Assange: "Stringing Along." Ny: "Brilliant Strategy." Hissyspit Mar 2015 #155

Well, yes. James Blond has essentially imprisoned himself, and public support has completely eroded msanthrope Mar 2015 #159

He was free on bail in the UK for a couple years, and then in the embassy, of his own volition, cemaphonic Mar 2015 #200

The statute of limitations was for the interview and subsequent indictment hack89 Mar 2015 #102

Got it. So the only thing Assange does now is further strain public perception of him. randome Mar 2015 #107

I recall looking it up for my state treestar Mar 2015 #184

This makes me think, probably a good idea if visiting another country to know something Rex Mar 2015 #95

If the judge told her to do it LittleBlue Mar 2015 #112

Yeah that just don't jive. Rex Mar 2015 #116

To me, thus case never added up LittleBlue Mar 2015 #118

Well you said it, the entire thing is bizarre. Rex Mar 2015 #123

Since a Swedish judge told her to conduct this interview, it is not illegal hack89 Mar 2015 #114

That's what I didn't understand. Rex Mar 2015 #117

That's because you're thinking about this under US law. jeff47 Mar 2015 #124

So they are extending the case and nullifying the SOL (or pushing the SOL to a future date)? Rex Mar 2015 #129

No, he has to be indicted within the SOL. jeff47 Mar 2015 #132

Yeah--that's what I posted above. She's going to toll the SOL. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #140

My bad I did not know what toll means. nt Rex Mar 2015 #144

AH IC so the ball now is in his court after she proceeds. Rex Mar 2015 #146

Rex, it's simple. The Swedish Prosecutor claimed that under Swedish Law before filing charges, sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #268

I just find it hard to believe the CIA/MI8 tried to set him up. Rex Mar 2015 #282

Actually it was Bank of America who most likely set him up. The set up began a couple of weeks sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #286

BOA I forgot all about that. Sweden now makes more sense. Rex Mar 2015 #291

k/r excellent thanks for posting nationalize the fed Mar 2015 #110

K & R malaise Mar 2015 #120

K&R elias49 Mar 2015 #154

"Obviously that was a bogus argument." BeanMusical Mar 2015 #163

A Marianne Ny reader. elias49 Mar 2015 #166

More of the mess. elias49 Mar 2015 #169

Did President Obama tell her to lie, Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #171

Because then they'd have to consider the rape charges. jeff47 Mar 2015 #201

I'm shocked! Shocked I say! 99Forever Mar 2015 #172

At some point, he will have effectively served his time goldent Mar 2015 #174

If the 'Swedish govt' did drop it, they'd be smart. nt elias49 Mar 2015 #175

Yeah, they should drop it. zappaman Mar 2015 #177

Really? elias49 Mar 2015 #179

Judge. zappaman Mar 2015 #190

You don't get to be judge. elias49 Mar 2015 #197

So you think these allegations should not be investigated. zappaman Mar 2015 #198

I already owe the OP an apology for wrongly diverting this thread... elias49 Mar 2015 #203

Assange (and others) WELCOME the interview. This isn't even a question nt riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #206

Cool. zappaman Mar 2015 #207

No he doesn't hack89 Mar 2015 #210

Is that why he refused to be interviewed and ran away? zappaman Mar 2015 #213

Yes....his Swedish lawyer testified that he had advised Assange that he would msanthrope Mar 2015 #238

You mean they have never been 'investigated'?? But we were told they WERE. Lol! sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #211

"Feminists in Assange Case Doing Harm to Feminism" elias49 Mar 2015 #178

DURec for Assange, WikiLeaks, and all the Whistle Blowers. bvar22 Mar 2015 #187

They better lay down them law books nilesobek Mar 2015 #202

Assange should run as MP for the Cities of London and Westminster constituency! struggle4progress Mar 2015 #218

Got my ROFLMAO at: freshwest Mar 2015 #394

Thanks you, sabrina 1, for your dogged pursuit of this story. Vilifying whistleblowers is ... Scuba Mar 2015 #227

Technically he is being vilified for rape... Oktober Mar 2015 #258

Ad hominem attack, intended to distract from the crimes Assange exposed. Scuba Mar 2015 #296

Only if you conveniently set aside the fact that the reason he fled... Oktober Mar 2015 #318

I don't have to conveniently set aside anything. He's being smeared for exposing crimes. Period. Scuba Mar 2015 #353

Facts are facts, Scuba and the propagandists, regarding actual Journalists and Whistle Blowers sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #271

Rec'd, but the truth won't stop the 100s of propaganda posters Corruption Inc Mar 2015 #255

We know it won't stop the propaganda. However it grows weaker by the day as the sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #259

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Mar 2015 #302

Post removed Post removed Mar 2015 #313

I find it interesting that the UK spent millions of pounds to have their cops hound Assange. backscatter712 Mar 2015 #263

That's exactly how it smells to most rational human beings. The despicable part of it is how sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #285

Well-said! n/t backscatter712 Mar 2015 #298

K&R G_j Mar 2015 #278

Kicked for the ultimate disinfection - SUNSHINE… Kicked for the Whistle Blowers MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #289

Can Assange refuse now? Helen Borg Mar 2015 #290

Do you GET it? MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #294

Why? Helen Borg Mar 2015 #305

The question is 'can the Prosecutor refuse to do what she has refused to do for years now' sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #301

Amazing that anyone with that patriarchal view of women should have been allowed anywhere near DU Fumesucker Mar 2015 #340

Exactly, but that is who we are supposed to 'look to' for 'facts' about this case. The man has sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #344

Assange is a person that exposes the truth. Inbetweendays Mar 2015 #300

Welcome to DU... MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #330

No one gives a shit about Wikileaks. Why do you bring that up? randome Mar 2015 #336

Gee, randome… you seem upset... MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #341

I don't do upset. Especially in response to a transparent attempt to provoke me. randome Mar 2015 #345

You seem to care an awful lot about Wikileaks. So does the US, the UK, Swedish prosecutors and right sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #346

So: yes. All those countries and players are conspiring to 'get' Assange. randome Mar 2015 #348

Exactly, this is like watching the birthers. Legal documents don't matter.. R B Garr Mar 2015 #378

Yes, you are correct, that is a good analogy of the false claimers over the past several years. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #379

.... R B Garr Mar 2015 #381

Can you provide something, ANYTHING about this case, some documentation, or anything, that sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #382

Yet you never did answer poster randome's post #348 R B Garr Mar 2015 #383

So nothing at all to add to the 'documentation' in this case? Okay, good to know. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #397

Thanks for agreeing you sound like a birther. R B Garr Mar 2015 #402

You must know that people who have READ documents related to this case, witness interviews, police sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #404

Sweden as well as some other nordic countries JonLP24 Mar 2015 #316

Why did Assange flee Sweden right after the prosecutor scheduled an interview with his lawyer? hack89 Mar 2015 #349

Ignoring the facts about that too, are you? Assange was told by the Prosecutor who had no time sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #351

That is not what his lawyer said under oath in court. hack89 Mar 2015 #352

Rape is awesome if we like you politically? nt alphafemale Mar 2015 #355

That seems to have been the position of the Swedish Prosecutor, assuming she sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #357

Assange has done more to insure transparency JEB Mar 2015 #356

By being a fence for stolen goods? randome Mar 2015 #358

I think the laziest form of journalism JEB Mar 2015 #375

By being a Publisher and prize winning Journalist. Democracies flourish when they have a free and sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #380

Hmmm... What are your thoughts on the Pentagon Papers release? Bernstein and Woodwards 1monster Mar 2015 #398

That is Assange's trade -to publish what others steal. That's just a fact. randome Mar 2015 #401

Loving this thread, Sabrina whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #387

Yep. Puglover Mar 2015 #393

At the risk of being labelled a rape apologist or Assange groupie... Violet_Crumble Mar 2015 #411

Thanks Violet. Puglover Mar 2015 #412

Thank you, I really appreciate that! sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #417

Let's review your "facts", shall we? NanceGreggs Mar 2015 #415

Well... zappaman Mar 2015 #421