It's good to know that you, single-handedly, have decided that no crime was committed based on an incomplete knowledge of all of the facts of the case. There i

It's good to know that you, single-handedly, have decided that no crime was committed based on an incomplete knowledge of all of the facts of the case. There is a reason we have criminal trials: it is to allow for the exposition of all of the facts of the case, not just the ones selectively released by the prosecution or defense. And, based on my reading of the facts currently available, it sounds like Assange may have been guilty of rape by fraud, if he misled either of the women about why he was not using protection. As to your final, comment: even a cursory glance at the news will suggest how ridiculously untrue it is. Laws, even those that have been on the books without issue for decades, are regularly challenged by defendants in the U.S. The trial court then holds a hearing on the law itself. Only after the challenge to the law has been resolved does the case proceed to trial on the substantive issues.