> The first excuse she gave was that it wasn't possible. She lied. This may be the case, but I can find no evidence of such a statement having been made. > As

> The first excuse she gave was that it wasn't possible. She lied. This may be the case, but I can find no evidence of such a statement having been made. > As to the second excuse, if that true, they wouldn't have eventually bothered, but they did, The justification was to do the interview so that they could continue to maintain the charges, which seems reasonable. Assange (nor anyone else) should not be rewarded for making themselves a fugitive to avoid a trial. > But somehow it seems to get people who try to defend the way the Assange case was handled very worked up. Well yes, mostly because (at least until he was actually put in jail in the UK) he wasn't actually subject to any human rights abuses or injustice. He, in fact, was treated with extreme deference and privilege compared to most people accused of crimes, and yet because of his platform people demand his kid gloves be treated with kid gloves. You cannot claim that someone's self-imposed exile is a human rights abuse. At that time, he was not imprisoned. He could have walked outside and faced justice and, he'd likely have been free sooner and with less detriment to himself. It is primarily because he had (as we can now see: unjustified) conspiratorial fears about getting disappeared that he suffered so much. And the majority of that was at his own hand, or as a result of him committing additional crimes to avoid facing justice for the alleged ones. If you actually care about human rights abuses, Assange is a terrible person to platform, both because he is eminently unlikeable and because his suffered "abuses" aren't really. Someone in Riker's likely has it worse, and less ability to improve their situation.