3 ms·

>Strangely, the women's lawyers had a slightly different view of their desire to pursue the matter through the court than the Assange campaign to prevent the ma

>Strangely, the women's lawyers had a slightly different view of their desire to pursue the matter through the court than the Assange campaign to prevent the matter going to trial. You mean the politician-lawyer Claes Borgstrom who was subsequently fired by the woman in question because he wasn't representing her and "he just wanted to be attached to a high profile case"? Yeah, nothing suspicious about that. >It stretches credulity to argue that responsibility for the affair lies more with the "big powers" than the decision of two apparently major fans to report him to the police "They are trying to arrest him on suspicion of XYZ … It is definitely a fit-up… Their timings are too convenient right after Cablegate." -- GCHQ officer, "straining credulity" with their wacky conspiracy theory. >And suggesting the "bad apple" most at fault for the whole affair is somehow the second prosecutor to look at the case is just unhinged. Because cases being dropped and then picked up again suddenly by people much higher up the political food chain isn't at all suspicious. That's just unhinged... >If the state wanted to railroad Assange, he'd have been in jail a lot quicker on much more straightforward charges Aside from the whole "first amendment" problem which prevented the straightforward charges, rape is a much better charge than treason if you can make it stick. It kills his credibility and prevents him from being martyred (like happened to Chelsea Manning).

notahacker 9y ago
> You mean the politician-lawyer Claes Borgstrom who was subsequently fired by the woman in question because he wasn't representing her and "he just wanted to be attached to a high profile case"? >Yeah, nothing suspicious about that No. I mean Elizabeth Massi Fritz, the lawyer who is currently making statements on their behalf that it is "a scandal that a suspected rapist can avoid the judicial system and thus avoid a trial in court" and that despite the prosecutor's latest decision her client "can't change her view that Assange has exposed her to a rape", having frequently issued statements calling for a trial over the past few years. The fact they sacked Borgstrom and hired someone else to continue to pursue the case against Assange actually undermines the Assangist theory that actually the whole thing was a conspiracy by the authorities that his accusers had no agency in. Yes, it is entirely unhinged (or staggeringly ignorant of how legal systems work) to suggest that a case based entirely on apparently-reluctant witness testimony being reopened on appeal by a more senior prosecutor after an appeal from the hitherto-reluctant accusers' lawyer and interview with the suspect is more likely to be evidence of a conspiracy than a properly functioning legal system.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >actually undermines the Assangist theory that actually the whole thing was a conspiracy by the authorities that his accusers had no agency in. The thing being a conspiracy and his accusers having agency in it, are orthogonal matters.
FireBeyond 9y ago
Apropos of anything else, let's not pretend that a press release from "justice4assange.com" is going to be any kind of impartial, let alone be used as an authoritative source as to the thoughts and motivations of his accusers. That stains credibility, to say the least.

notahacker 9y ago

> You mean the politician-lawyer Claes Borgstrom who was subsequently fired by the woman in question because he wasn't representing her and "he just wanted to be attached to a high profile case"? >Yeah, nothing suspicious about that No. I mean Elizabeth Massi Fritz, the lawyer who is currently making statements on their behalf that it is "a scandal that a suspected rapist can avoid the judicial system and thus avoid a trial in court" and that despite the prosecutor's latest decision her client "can't change her view that Assange has exposed her to a rape", having frequently issued statements calling for a trial over the past few years. The fact they sacked Borgstrom and hired someone else to continue to pursue the case against Assange actually undermines the Assangist theory that actually the whole thing was a conspiracy by the authorities that his accusers had no agency in. Yes, it is entirely unhinged (or staggeringly ignorant of how legal systems work) to suggest that a case based entirely on apparently-reluctant witness testimony being reopened on appeal by a more senior prosecutor after an appeal from the hitherto-reluctant accusers' lawyer and interview with the suspect is more likely to be evidence of a conspiracy than a properly functioning legal system.

coldtea 9y ago
>actually undermines the Assangist theory that actually the whole thing was a conspiracy by the authorities that his accusers had no agency in. The thing being a conspiracy and his accusers having agency in it, are orthogonal matters.

FireBeyond 9y ago

Apropos of anything else, let's not pretend that a press release from "justice4assange.com" is going to be any kind of impartial, let alone be used as an authoritative source as to the thoughts and motivations of his accusers. That stains credibility, to say the least.