Home | About | Donate

While Much of US Media Play Along, Critics Warn Assange Indictment an 'Obvious' Ploy With Deeper Dangers





When a foreign business conspires with a foreign country and an American political party to change the course of an American election and subvert the will of the American voters, that’s illegal. It’s more than the simple issue of free press. They took down the National Enquirer for colluding with Trump to hide his illicit affairs with prostitutes.



The only prominent political figure in the U.S. that has unequivocally speak out against this injustice is Tulsi Gabbard. I guess I know who I am voting for the primary.

1 Like


Just sent a letter to the Sanders campaign letting them know no more contributions because of his deafening silence. I will consider the candidate you suggest.



Interesting, thanks.

I’ve paid particular attention to Assange issues, but still seven years is a long time for my memory to stretch.

I checked the article again for where it said Assange entered the embassy to avoid charges in Sweden, and I can’t find it. So either I made a mistake, or they changed the wording since yesterday. Also it’s possible they meant charges that might materialize if he were extradited to Sweden.

It makes no sense to me that Sweden claims they couldn’t charge him in the embassy. I remember they were invited to question him in the embassy, in person or by phone or by video conference, and they refused without giving a reason at the time.

Your other linked article says “unable to formally notify him of allegations” while he was in the embassy. That still makes zero sense. There was no barrier to notifying him of anything, formally or otherwise.

Also they don’t identify the woman in the current case, not that they should name her, but I never heard there were more than two women, and it was reported they both say they never accused Assange of rape. Is this one of those two? Or someone else? Does the word rape not translate in Swedish? Or was that more fake news?

I also remember the Swedish case was investigated while Assange was still in Sweden, that he was interviewed, that he cooperated with the investigation, that he voluntarily stayed in Sweden five weeks longer than he wanted to in order to cooperate with the investigation, and they concluded the investigation, decided not to charge him, and told him he was free to leave. Then the decision was made by someone higher up the Swedish political ladder to reopen the case after Assange was in London, and they abused the Interpol red warrant system for someone only wanted for questioning.

I almost want to see Assange tried in Sweden so their lack of evidence can be exposed, but I have no confidence he would be given a fair trial there either given their behavior so far, and the Swedes are still U.S. bootlickers who hand over anyone for extradition.

If Sweden decides not to renew their extradition request, I agree it seems likely proof they were never interested in anything but handing him over to the U.S. If they wait for the UK to decide whether to hand him over to Trump first, they may prefer to let the UK look like the bootlickers this time.

1 Like


Also in the article, I see Jeremy Corbyn backtracked on his support for Assange - I am super disappointed in Corbyn, if he’s been quoted accurately.

“But speaking on Saturday, Mr Corbyn said he had made it “very clear all along that if there are allegations which Julian Assange needs to answer, of sexual issues, sexual attacks that may or may not have taken place in Sweden, then it’s a matter for the courts to decide - but I do think he should answer those questions.””

Uh, ok, sure. I’m for the Swedish case to be resolved too. But the whole reason Assange has been fighting extradition to Sweden is to avoid extradition to the US. Did Corbyn forget that part? Weird. Is he saying he now supports Assange being extradited to Sweden?

The article falsely says “US has already charged Assange with a single count of participating in the hacking”, and as Glenn Greenwald explained, the US charge does not include hacking. The media has been mindlessly repeating “hacking” because the DOJ’s press release dishonestly used the word hacking in it’s headline.



I think that’s Jeremy trying to do a difficult balancing act and not alienate the feminist element of his party etc, considering the climate of the times with the ‘me too’ movement and widespread revelations about sexual harrassment and such. There is a lobby to that effect from MPs, many Labour and female, who signed the open letter suggesting Assange be extradited to Sweden rather than the US. Whether the people lobbying that cause are all sincere about that being a big issue for them is open to question, though you have to wonder if they weren’t and it was just a ploy to have Assange extradited to Sweden then the US, why would they do this considering the chances he could be extradited to the US directly is looking very possible now the US has filed for extradition on its own charges. The UK had a precedent for refusing extradition to the US for computer ‘hacking’ as with the Gary McKinnon case so if they broke that precedent it would look suspect!

1 Like


I liked your comment, that said, please don’t shout.



After Obama got the Peace Prize, what is it worth?