Julian Assange and Wikileaks

He won't be proved innocent or guilty of any of the charges in Sweden because the court there will not pursue it, so the Swedish case is no longer relevant.

As you said, skipping bail is the only thing he would definitely be tried for and (almost) certainly found guilty. (I say "almost" just to allow for the possibility of some bizarre scenario where he somehow gets off.)

Is the penalty for skipping bail a jail term? I would expect that it would be, or at least a suspended sentence and a fine, but I don't know about UK legislation in this.

If he does get a suspended sentence, I wonder if he might just leave the country - assuming he's allowed to travel, and not handed over to the US - and never come back? I don't think the authorities in the UK would mind that. He could go back to Australia or move to Ecuador now that he's got citizenship there. Russia would probably also be happy to have him.

Weren't the Ecuadorians making noises about being really fed up with his presence at the embassy as well?

Yeah, they were - but then they granted him citizenship, anyway.

That was a strategy they did so that if he has to leave, the MPS won't harass him.

I don’t know the exact punishment for skipping bail, but I’m pretty sure if he gets a suspended sentence he won’t be allowed to leave the country until it has passed. Once he’s served his time he’d be free to leave and might even be deported.

Cross posting from the US politics thread, a recently leaked chat shows that among other things, Wikileaks was rapidly anti-Clinton, and worked towards getting a Republican elected to the White House.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43072261

Yeah, we aren't dealing with good people here.

Some of my friends claim that Clinton has gone on record saying of Assange "Why can't we just drone him" at some staff meeting, making Wikileaks justifiably angry at her. Of course, they advanced no proof of such, nor even an article link.

edited 15th Feb '18 7:52:10 AM by Medinoc

[Citation Needed] is basically the subtitle of Hillary Clinton's reputation.

https://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/

Basically it's a "someone unnamed at State said she asked this".

edited 15th Feb '18 10:16:43 AM by Deadbeatloser22

I see we have someone tone policing a judge.

Not quite sure where a judge's role includes prejudging as well, it did come across as facts and evidence don't matter, he's obviously guilty and wanting to hurt Assange, make him pay for what he's alleged to have done. Now as far as the drone strike is concerned that was an extreme idea that I had no idea Snopes had actually looked at, but I think even Trump would have more pressing concerns than looking to start a war over this. As I understand it Assange is in a box, he can't be exposing secrets to the world anymore and to those who were threatened by him (let's say it's possible the allegations were a way to silence him) then that's enough, he's discredited.

Again, tone policing a judge. You are deciding, based on the judge's tone of voice, that she harbours a personal hatred for Assange and wants to cause him personal harm.

That's how she came across. Am I wrong to point out if a judge maybe oversteps their bounds on a allegation? Remember this is only allegations at this point.

So what evidence is there that he didn't skip bail?

He skipped bail sure and he should be hung drawn and quartered for that, and if Assange did rape a girl then yes condemn him if he did it. I guess this judge is just that mad and just that furious that Assange skipped bail that in her mind of course he's guilty.

Still making up accusations against the judge, huh? Again your argument her boils down to "I don't like her tone" and any argument based on policing a woman's tone is innately suspicious.

And that's ignoring the fact that even if she was biased against him (which I doubt), the legal options the UK courts have against Assange are highly limited. At worst, he gets a year in prison and is then deported to Australia.

It's not "suspicious" if her words can be reasonably interpreted to indicate that she would come down on Assange harder than is necessary just because she doesn't like him. Which apparently they can.

So this leaked chat shows that Wikileaks actively sabotaged Clinton because they thought Trump would be a better president and because she was "dangerous" and a "sociopath"? Has anyone of them even bothered to take a look at Trump before that?

And the conspiracy theories just keep going on.

Trump is a rapist. Assange is a rapist. He probably looked at him and went you know, it's like looking in a mirror. Whereas Clinton's the kind of scary, "nasty woman" that your average sexual assaulter is simultaneously terrified and contemptuous of.

edited 15th Feb '18 3:31:05 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

,They are also both (at least indirectly) fascist enabling FSB assets, which probably has a lot to do with it.

No conspiracy theory. Tone matters.

The courts have been unable to go ahead with finding his guilt or innocence so I'm sure we would all be very interested indeed in the details of the court case you have conducted.

Not surprised people are tone policing a female judge for being “mean” to a guy who may have committed rape.

Just a matter of believing the victims.

Just out of curiosity the trial would be in America yes? Do they not have presumption of innocence?