> Under Sweden's laws, he can't be questioned until he appears in person to be charged. I know the prosecutor said this initially but then backtracked. I don't

> Under Sweden's laws, he can't be questioned until he appears in person to be charged. I know the prosecutor said this initially but then backtracked. I don't think it is true (Happy to be shown to be wrong though). Swedish prosecutors questioned someone else in Serbia in the same time frame. I never said Sweden and US were closer allies I said that Sweden was easier for the US to influence since it was smaller. Sweden doesn't have as much influence in the world, benefits more from each incoming dollar, doesn't have as much bargaining power, doesn't have as much that the US wants, etc. Then when Sweden became involved with Assange the US secretary of state made the first bilateral visit in 36 years. The ability for the US to influence Sweden matters more than whether the leadership is conservative or liberal or that their extradition procedures are similar or that the judiciary is as much accountable (notwithstanding the fact that they are accountable to different groups of people with polar opposite views on the accused) Finally, my understanding is that the consent of the UK for onward extradition is a rubber stamp from the secretary of state.