General Discussion

riderinthestorm

(23,272 posts)

185. It also indicates that Ny's a big fat liar

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 08:06 PM

Mar 2015

but you keep glossing over that inconvenient truth.

Ny has no credibility on this case any more.

Assange is getting exactly what he's asked for all along - the interview. Nothing holding Ny back now. She should be on that plane as we speak... Lol.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

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