This statement would be much more informative if you were to mention what that "something they legally cannot agree to" might be. According to the article linke

This statement would be much more informative if you were to mention what that "something they legally cannot agree to" might be. According to the article linked elsewhere in this thread by lazyjones: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/11/julian-assange-case-progress-sweden-ecuador-negotiations-wikileaks http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/11/julian-assange-... Ecuador had insisted on negotiating a specific agreement with Sweden over the conditions for questioning Assange in the embassy, which would be contrary to the Swedish constitution, Riddselius said last week. She said Quito had also demanded that Sweden confer upon Assange the same status of political refugee bestowed on him by Ecuador, which had created a fresh obstacle to agreement. This appeared to prompt a statement by the Ecuadorian embassy on Monday: “At no point has the Republic of Ecuador asked the Kingdom of Sweden to grant Mr Assange asylum”. Particularly in a case like Assange's, where there are accusations of propaganda and lies aimed at multiple players, I dislike repeating unnecessarily vague claims. (As for the larger issues, I have no useful facts that would allow me to figure out what's going on. But I'd like to avoid muddying the waters any further.)