Julian Assange arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

a reply to: RexKramerPRT

It was not an alleged sexual assault.

He was charged for failing to wear a contraceptive. NOT a sex crime.

The female involved was NOT charged for failing to wear a contraceptive.

Double standard, honeypot BS.

Men are crazy for getting involved with insane nutjobs these days

a reply to: Willtell

You still upset that he exposed your precious little Hillhag?

Glad to see all the lefties here actually, totally undermines your pro-asylum arguments.

I don't want to hear it when we start grabbing your illegals and physically tossing them out of our country then.

a reply to: JBurns

NOT a sex crime.

Sure about that? You'll be able to provide the relevant Swedish law to back it up.

a reply to: RexKramerPRT

Care to refute what I said?

Regardless it is wholly irrelevant, the charges were dropped so not much to say there.

It was 100% invented by (likely) drug addict CIA playthings who set Assange up in a classic honeypot scheme. Retribution for leaking truthful information.

People having sex should have their heads examined. This is an age old trick.

He was granted asylum and kicked to the curb because he published truthful information that hurt some slob's itty bitty wittle fweelings.

a reply to: RexKramerPRT

I will do no such thing. I'm not some PC tool. Sex crimes are just regular crimes that give the knee or tear jerkers something extra to twitch/ramble on about.

Where's the proof? If they were intoxicated, why wasn't the woman also charged? No contraception? Woman should wear them too.

a reply to: RexKramerPRT

One of the women has said on the record that she didnt want Assange arrested, she just wanted him to take an STD test.

This was nothing more than a diversion tactic by the UK from the total Brexit clusterf**k. Assange is nothing more than a sacrificial lamb.

I don't think we'll see a dead mans switch, apparently the whole purpose of that is misunderstood.

We openly distribute … encrypted backups of materials that we view are highly sensitive that we are to publish in the coming year… So that there is very little possibility that that material, even if we are completely wiped out, will be taken from the historical record… Ideally, we will never reveal the key… Because there is things, like, … redactions sometimes need to be done on this material.”

- Julian Assange 2012 Heavy article.

It appears it is more for Wikileaks as a whole than Julian Assange himself.

originally posted by: BlackIbanez
Wow, what an odd look with the beard and shaved head... Not sure what image he's going for but I think several years in that embassy have perhaps rusted his circuitry.
Still, the guy deserves a fair hearing but if he does end up on a "rendition flight" we may well never see him again, I can see the MIC wanting to make an example of him...
"This is what happens, you like the bear and you lose".
On the other hand, Assange may indeed end up laughing last and longest!

Assange is dead. C_A assassin/spy recruited by handler Hugh Heffner, Pamela Anderson, killed him. (Or, Pamela Hyytiäinen, if her Finnish grandfather hadn't changed his last name to Anderson. Finnish = basically Russian. Just kidding lol.)

Anyway, yeah, that's (probably) a body double.

He had to remain mysteriously hidden from the public eye while he grew the beard and practiced his mannerisms. Maybe if he shaves and we get a better look, I'll be a little less suspicious....

a reply to: JBurns

When Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, asked two Swedish women out on dates in August, he may not have known that Swedish laws protecting women in their sexual encounters include wide-ranging definitions of sexual assault and rape. Now Mr. Assange, an Australian who is currently in Britain, faces an extradition request from Swedish prosecutors who want to question him on whether separate sexual encounters he had with each of the women became nonconsensual after he was no longer using a condom.

Swedish criminal laws regarding sex offenses are not necessarily all that much stricter than the laws in many other European countries, Mr. Borgstrom said. But Swedish women, backed by a strong consciousness of women’s rights and a history of a very public discussion of the scourge of sexual violence, may be more willing than most to look to the law for help.

In Sweden, Sex Assault Gets Little Tolerance

I only hope this encourages all those who are appalled by this to leak, leak, leak like a sieve.

Should Glen Greenwald be looking over his shoulder for thugs in suits & ties now? How about BIll Binney- A patriot, by any account. Should he be afraid to stroll through the park this spring, fearing whether government spooks may be lurking in the bushes like the incompetent GI-joe wanna-be phonies they are?

I find it amusing how those who's PERSONAL OPINION against Assange overrides their moral standpoint on the issue of secrecy, asylum and corruption.

Either you believe state secrets include the right to hide "embarrassing material or evidence of criminality" or you don't. Either you believe asylum laws protect those fleeing Government persecution or you don't. Either you believe corruption is a vile disease that should be exposed, beaten and crushed wherever it exists or you don't.

The false equivalencies here are alarming. And the inability of many to see a blatant honey-pot operation is just laughable.

Shame on you.

a reply to: PokeyJoe

One of the women has said on the record that she didnt want Assange arrested, she just wanted him to take an STD test.

And the second woman?

I stopped respecting him after he became obvious enemy of the USA and no one else. America this, America that, nothing about Russia, nothing about middleast filth, nothing about China? So biased journalist should probably work for RT and not portray himself as some white hat holy bringer of saint news.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: UKTruth
He only skipped bail because he was hiding from Americans who wanted him dead because he provided the world with great journalism.

He skipped bail to avoid extradition to Sweden having exhasued all legal avenues. You need to get your facts straight.

There you go again! You know the reason why he skipped bail, and we will find that out soon enough, and you will still agree everything that goes against him, even though you claim you do not hate him. You are lying. You do not like the fact that he went up against your sociopathic mini Gods!

originally posted by: JBurns
He was charged for failing to wear a contraceptive. NOT a sex crime.

Firstly, he was not charged. He was wanted for questioning.

Secondly, not wearing a condom when he was asked to do so, and bonking someone when they were asleep is considered rape in Sweden, so they were a sex crime. In the extradition (to Sweden) hearing back in 2011 it was confirmed what he was alleged to have done would hve been considered rape in the UK too.

originally posted by: PokeyJoe

For Assange's personal gain? Boy that sure backfired on him, didnt it?

With either motivation for Assange he made his own bed and so he needs to sleep in it.

originally posted by: paraphi


Secondly, not wearing a condom when he was asked to do so, and bonking someone when they were asleep is considered rape in Sweden, so they were a sex crime. In the extradition (to Sweden) hearing back in 2011 it was confirmed what he was alleged to have done would hve been considered rape in the UK too.

There is this little thing that people tend to over look these days and that is the woman doesn't need to comply to have sex if he wasn't wearing a condom and unless she was totally passed out she could once again elected to not have sex in the middle of the night unless in both cases Assange forced himself on her and that would be rape.

In both cases if the woman just lets it all happen then I would say it was consensual in nature. I guess I better not go after the 2 AM bootie call if that isn't the case.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

You mean like the Library of Congress serial number we have in books in the States?

a reply to: RexKramerPRT

EDIT: I don't profess to know what went down with regards to the alleged sexual assault and neither do you so your assertion that it is BS is in fact BS.

I’ve provided the link with the full story of exactly what went down twice. Why don’t you read it? Then Tell me how consensual sex on both occasions in any way amounts to rape which he has been accused of? I can’t see any offence actually where he could be prosecuted for anything. Unless he really did intentionally split the condom, but really? And how could that be proved anyway. It’s clearly hyped beyond all proportion.

a reply to: surfer_soul

became nonconsensual after he was no longer using a condom.