WikiLeaker Assange, Google's Schmidt and a secret 5-hour chinwag Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt privately met WikiLeaker-in-chief Julian Assange while the computer hacker was holed up under strict bail terms. Australia-born Assange™ was staying in Norfolk, England, at the time of the chat - while waiting to find out whether he would be extradited to Sweden to face questions over …
And don't forget, that according to the mega corps and the governments
Privacy (A) = Secrecy (B)
and that Security (S) is increased by both increasing government/corp secrecy (Bx) and by reducing citizen secrecy (By), i.e.
S is proportional to Bx, and S is inversely proportional to By
As B (secrecy) = A (privacy) it follows that maximum security is obtained by increasing privacy for Gov/corp and reducing privacy for citizens.
This post has been deleted by its author
X + Y = Z
Where X is freedom and Y is security
Z is constant. One always detracts from the other.
There is such a thing as human rights, and the right to privacy, although Schmidt is obviously hard at work to make that disappear for people not called Schmidt who work at Google. There are also genuine reasons for secrecy - provided they are balanced with later transparency or trustworthy overview to prevent exactly the sort of abuse we see today. I think the Wikileaks approach is incorrect, it's too juvenile.
He has always denied any wrongdoing, and Swedish authorities have not laid out any charges against the 41-year-old
Sjezus, please don't tell me we have to restart the whole &%ç* "he did/he didn't/what part of the Swedish legal process don't you understand" sequence again, especially coming from an El Reg hack? The way this is phrased makes it seem Assange is this poor innocent lamb that is only wanted because the evil Swedes want to export him to the US. I really thought we'd put that nonsense behind us. The guy put his todger somewhere in conditions incompatible with Swedish law (and other countries), so the authorities would like to have a chat with him. What is so hard to understand about that? It is irrelevant that they lived happily ever after - at the time, he acted without permission and actually directly against expressed wishes.
"...with 48 hours of YouTube video coming in every minute, we can't mechanically do it."
Sure you can, just hire 2,880 people to watch one minute each. With 3 shifts of 8 hours each, that's only 8,640 people to run the process 24/7. California's minimum wage is $8 per hour so it would only cost a bit more than $200 Million in salaries, plus incidentals (electricity, health insurance, etc.) Given that Google made multiple Billions in 2012, this seems entirely feasible.
It's "Norfolk, UK" or "Norfolk, East Anglia" or "Norfolk in eastern England" or "that sticky out bit that's really flat and the inhabitants are (alleged) inbred"
not "Norfolk, England" - giveaway to US writer.
Seriously, comparing telephone conversations with Grandma to unpredicted information on Afghans that helped the Alliance root out Taleban and AQ nutters? I don't ever remember chats with Grandma wandering into the illegal disclosure of government secrets or endangering lives. What a pathetic little toerag A$$ange is.
Oh, and someone explain to Jellybrain Fiveash the only reason A$$nut has not been charged is because A$$nut bunked before he could.
Assange bunked because the Honey Trap honey turned toxic and the prosecutor who declared there would be no charges was fired and a rape nazi took his place. In fact, he did have a clue. Had he not bolted Anna Ardin would have supped on his nipples, testicles and johnson, prepared a la Sverige and served flagrante delicto.
Assange bunked down because of the Honey Trap? Nobody, is that gullible to believe any of that, let a lone be caught up in such a scheme. However, starting intercourse on a person who is not wake or a conscious state is rape. Which begs the question why does not Assange insist that he woke her?
"What dire offense from amorous rear entry springs,
What mighty contests rise from leaky latex things....
* * *
"Nobody, is that gullible to believe any of that" @ AC Sat. 9:52 GMT
Without hearing a word of testimony, (there have been no court proceedings), without reading any of the statements of Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen (läser du svenska?), you have concluded that Anna and Sofia are telling the truth and Assange is not. And anyone who does not agree with you is 'gullible'.
You, Sir or Madam, appear to be at one with the Queen of Hearts:
"Now for the evidence," said the King, "and then the sentence."
"No!" said the Queen, "first the sentence, and then the evidence!"
"Nonsense!" cried Alice, so loudly that everybody jumped, "the idea of having the sentence first!"
"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen."
You probably were also at one with the recently departed 'Woman in the Iron Bouffant.'
Without hearing a word of testimony, (there have been no court proceedings), without reading any of the statements of Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen (läser du svenska?), you have concluded that Anna and Sofia are telling the truth and Assange is not. And anyone who does not agree with you is 'gullible'.
From what we know so far, the stories of the girls seem to hold up more that Assange's version (I find it brutally ironic that we discovered just how much he was twisting events through the leaking of case files). Having said that, you're absolutely right - it's time we find out properly who we can believe. For which Assange needs to be interrogated as per normal process.
From which events he ran away.. That's not proof, but it does imply Assange is afraid of something, and from multiple legal analysis (and, let's not forget, a fully completed multiple level legal challenge which Assange lost) it is not extradition to the US. He knows just as well as anyone else with a critical mind that that is hogwash.
Thus, on the balance of the above alone - tell me, who are you prepared to believe?
(sorry for the format. Copying pdf.)
"Odd behaviour for a sex-crime victim"
"Göran Rudling notes that there are discrepancies between what
Anna Ardin tells the police about her sexual encounter with
Assange, and what she tells her friends. Referring to the remark
overheard by Boström at Ms. Ardin’s crayfish party, Rudling poses
the question: “Would you say to someone who had assaulted you
that you felt ‘dumped’ afterwards?”14
There are many similar questions raised by Ms. Ardin’s behaviour,
which included the following:
• The day after the “assault”, Ms. Ardin co-operated in seeming
harmony with Assange at the Broderskapet seminar.
• After the seminar, she volunteered to arrange a crayfish party
for Assange.
• At that party, she said that it was quite all right for him to
continue living with her.
• She also Twittered to a friend that it was “just amazing” to
be sitting with “the world’s coolest, smartest people”.
• The next day, she volunteered to serve as Assange’s press
secretary at a meeting with the Pirate Party.
• It is not until the following Thursday, after she had spoken
with Sofia Wilén, that she chose to stop sleeping in the same
room with Assange.
• The next day, Friday, she told friends that Sofia Wilén had been
raped by Assange; but there is no mention of any such crime in
the interviews with Ms. Wilén and her friends.
• Shortly before or after the police interview, Mrs. Ardin attempted
to erase three Twitter messages which indicated that she
remained on friendly terms with Assange.
• She also asked the Pirate Party to remove her name from a press
release about the meeting at which she had volunteered to serve
as Assange’s press secretary.
• In the telephone interview with the police on August 21st, she
omitted all information tending to establish Assange’s innocence.
She said nothing about the crayfish party she arranged on his
behalf, nor about the Twitter messages, her voluntary role as
press secretary, her conversations with Donald Boström, etc."
" At no time did either woman tell Assange to stop or otherwise express disapproval of the sexual acts in which they participated."
" Both women told friends that their purpose in visiting the police was not to accuse Assange of any crime, but to seek assistance in compelling him to be tested for HIV."
"23 August. Police officer Irmeli Krans returns to work on Monday
morning, intending to proofread the protocol of her interview with
Sofia Wilén and correct any errors it might contain. But she discovers that she is denied access to the text file in the police computer system. “After an exchange of e-mails, I was ordered by lead
investigator Mats Gehlin to instead write and sign a new protocol
in the computer system, which was done on Thursday, August 26th
with necessary changes.”
The process of revision included the following curious exchange of
e-mails:
Irmeli Krans to Mats Gehlin
I hope that I have done it correctly now, and that the document
reaches you properly. Please acknowledge. As regards the
verbal report to the prosecutor [Maria H. Kjellstrand], I have
no information other than that it was done via telephone by
Linda Wassgren at some point during the interview (see
“Arrest warrant based on very little” on p. 14). What was said
is not known to me, as Wassgren does not wish to communicate with me. I had no opportunity to discuss the crime
classification with the prosecutor; rather, I was informed that
it would be classified as rape per the prosecutor’s directive.
Mats Gehlin to Irmeli Krans
Do this: Add [the changes] to your interview protocol and then
sign it. It would look odd if I were to sign it.
Irmeli Krans to Mats Gehlin
Yes, of course. But then there will be two interview protocols.
But only one formal interview has been conducted, at least by
me. Where will the other interview go to? If it is to be done
properly, I assume that I have to make the changes in the
original protocol and sign that. At the risk of appearing
troublesome, I do not want an unsigned document with my
name on it circulating in the computer system — especially
now that the case has developed as it has.
Mats Gehlin to Irmeli Krans
Write a new protocol. Add the changes and assign the protocol
to the case. And sign the protocol.
Irmeli Krans to Mats Gehlin
Perhaps I am a bit thick, but I don’t really understand what
you mean. [Our colleague] Anders Ringkvist is trying to help
me and, although we have rung you up, we have not been able
to resolve the problem.24
Exactly what changes were made to the original version is
potentially significant information that has yet to become publicly
available. Another intriguing question is why Linda Wassgren
refused to communicate with Irmeli Krans. It was officer Wassgren
who, together with Mats Gehlin, conveyed the few bits of information that led to the original arrest order."
This is but a miniscule amount of what these Swedidh investigators found,
if you want to read the other 95%, here's the link:
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/protocol.htm
This will take you to many more links.
If you have anything out of Sweden to contradict this, I'll be glad to look at it.
The simple fact is that Assange is wanted for questioning so the Swedish authorities can investigate exactly what happened between the parties involved, and then judge what to do about it. Until that happens, all the data we have on either side is contributing, but not decisive. A Court decision is, and I note again that he lost that fully legal process already in the UK after exhausting all possible options and opportunities for escalation.
The only thing we more or less know for certain is that what Assange alleges to be the motivation (export to the US) is the exact one thing that's not on the cards as that would have been much easier in the UK.
You wont get an argument from me that Assange jumped bail in England's green and pleasant land. And did those feet scamper into the cramped Ecuadorean Embassy? I'll testify to it.
But those actions are completely and totally irrelevant to the rape case that he was set up for in screwed up Sweden.
And what, counsel, are the blundering Swedish authorities going to investigate? Everything pertinent to determining the truth is colder than an eskimo's arse. All that exists are the police interviews that were given shortly after the girls invented their stories. All three of the principals can rehearse them as well as an Archbishop does before the coronation of a monarch. If you really think evidence is going to be discovered if and when Assange is apprehended or turns himself in, I'll give you a job washing windows in my house, because soon you obviously are going to need all the financial assistance you can get. :o)
(I'll bet you didn't even look at the Nordic News Network site)
"From what we know so far..." From what you know so far. Fixed it for you.
"the stories of the girls seem to hold up more that Assange's version"
"ASSANGE & SWEDEN
Sequence of Events
Important events and developments relating to
the Swedish prosecutor’s case against Julian Assange
13 August 2010
Anna Ardin returns a day early to her Stockholm flat, which she has lent to Julian
Assange in connection with a seminar. He offers to find other lodgings, but she invites
him to stay. That night they engage in a lengthy session of consensual sex, during which
she utters not a word of objection or dissatisfaction.
14 August 2010
Assange is the principal speaker at the seminar; Anna Ardin plays a key supporting
role. Assange spends the afternoon with Sofia Wilén, during which they engage in
heavy petting and agree to meet again. That evening, Anna Ardin arranges a crayfish
party in Assange’s honour and expresses great delight at the company she is keeping.
Alternative lodgings are offered to Assange, but Ms. Ardin invites him to continue
residing at her flat.
15 August 2010
At a meeting on the future activities of WikiLeaks in Sweden, Anna Ardin serves as
Assange’s press secretary.
16 August 2010
Assange accompanies Sofia Wilén to her flat in the town of Enköping. He wears a
condom during several consensual acts of sexual intercourse. Then he penetrates her
once without a condom. She warns that he’d “better not have HIV” but lets him continue without objection. They part on apparently friendly terms and agree to meet again.
17-18 August 2010
Sofia Wilén becomes increasingly anxious about the risk of infection due to the one act
of unprotected intercourse with Assange, but is unable to contact him.
19 August 2010
Sofia Wilén phones Anna Ardin to seek assistance in contacting Assange. It is not clear
what they discussed with each other or with Assange. Ms. Ardin asks Assange to move
out of her flat, which he does the following morning.
20 August 2010
Accompanied by Anna Ardin, Sofia Wilén visits a Stockholm police station — by their
own account, for the limited purpose of obtaining assistance in compelling Assange to
take an HIV test. Ms. Wilén is interviewed by a police officer who is a friend and
political ally of Ms. Ardin.
On the basis of very little information, including what appears to be a decisive
utterance by Ms. Ardin, prosecutor #1 decides to arrest Assange in absentia on suspicion
of rape and other sex crimes. When Ms. Wilén is informed of that decision, she is unable
to continue the interview and leaves without approving the written account of it. News of
the warrant is leaked to a Swedish tabloid and, within hours, global media are full of
articles and headlines linking Assange’s name to the word “rape”.
If the girls' story holds up better than Assange's, perhaps you should get an athletic supporter instead of a bra.
If only all that was being presented in court under oath as evidence, eh? Oh, but it's not, and you know that the Dickileaks groupies have been sprouting male bovine manure (along with threats and childish squeals of outrage) since before the two women in question were even identified. All A$$nut has to do is man up and go back to face the courts, then all these unsubstantiated claims made by his supporters can be put to rest. Do I think it likely that A$$nut thinks they'll hold up in court? Does a bear take dumps in the woods. Looks like liars take dumps in the Ecuadorean embassy.
Has tipsy little Sweden contorted its head up its arse in the Assange case to make amends for its Naziness in World War II? Probably.
"Narvik-based journalist Espen Eidum spent three years sifting through Norwegian, Swedish and German archives to discover how the Nazis had managed to get troops and supplies to the front lines in Narvik in 1940, enabling them to turn a losing battle into a decisive victory that led to the conquest and brutal occupation of the whole country.
Sweden, although neutral, had in fact gone out of its way to aid the Germans, who would rely on the country for much of its iron ore during the war."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2154901/Neutral-Sweden-allowed-Nazis-use-railways-occupy-Norway--transfer-Jews-death-camps-new-book-claims.html.
"The Dickileaks groupies have been sprouting male bovine manure (along with threats and childish squeals of outrage) since before the two women in question were even identified." And the Patriots du Jour have been threatening Assange since before he even arrived in Sweden. They cancel each other out.
You don't assume that Sweden is silly enough to allow hearsay evidence in its courts? Or that judges can not decide what evidence is permitted and what is not? Or that the laws against suborned perjury are just as harsh as using a condom with a picture of Don Juan on i?.
".....You don't assume that Sweden is silly enough to allow hearsay evidence in its courts?...." Little chance of it going to court and being exposed for little more than whimsical tattletales unless your quivering hero grows a pair and goes to Sweden to face charges.
"Little chance of it going to court and being exposed for little more than whimsical tattletales"
There are only three witnesses to the alleged crimes. No one has testified to any three-way behavior, so the two Honeys never witnessed Assange boning the other one sans condom. The Crown's whole case depends on the court's acceptance of the argument that Assange's crimes are proved by the supposedly similar sexual activity of Assange and the corroborating evidence given by the two Honey Trap Girls. That it demonstrates Assange's prior and similar behavior. Behavior, by the way, only seen in The Land Of The Midnight Honey Trap. And all this after Wikileaks dropped its digital bomb.
All the interviews have been taken. There are no secret witnesses to testify behind screens in court. There has been no mention of a telepathist who ha s been communicating with the venereal lesions of any or all of the three fuck buddies. The cockroaches have greedily devoured all the crusty jizzum. Nothing to see here.
Your pretense, Sir, is that some Solomonic judicial thingy will evolve from Assange surrendering to Swedish police --- OTHER THAN HE WILL THEN BE IN JAIL. And once there, the US will then declare its deceitful hand. Though he may not be judicially extradited to the US, Assange , as the Swedish Supreme Court Justice recently announced in Adelaide, Australia, HE CAN BE EXTRA JUDICIALLY EXTRADITED TO AMERICA.
Then, Sir, you will finally be happy and can cease your daily self-flagellation on your now tender and bloody back.
(All your down votes are like chocolate chips to me. I prize them. "Please, Sir, I want some more.") :o)
Poor Local Dupe, he has completely forgotten that it WAS just the word of the women versus that of A$$nut, right up to the point where A$$nut admitted to the Swedish authorities in preliminary questioning that he had indeed had nonconsensual sex because he did not understand local laws. Then, A$$nut made it even worse for himself - when his lawyer was told the authorities were going to charge him, he did a runner! So now it's the word of the women, A$$nut's own admission, plus his doing a runner from Sweden. He then arrives in the UK, spends months bleating on about justice whilst fighting extradition back to Sweden, and then - when he has exhausted all legal options - he shows what he really thinks of justice by doing another runner! So, now it's the word of the women, plus his admissions, plus his bunk from Sweden, plus his bail-jumping in the UK. But still the blinkered Faithful like Local Dupe want to pretend it's all about smearing the women as liars and man-haters.
Seriously, there can only be so long that Local Dupe can carry on trying to pretend reality has not happened.
Dear Mr Bryant
We regret to inform you that you have failed Honey Trap 101. You will be permitted to retake the course or have a failure on your permanent record.
"admitted to the Swedish authorities in preliminary questioning that he had indeed had nonconsensual sex" Really? Can you provide that citation?
We know that Assange's departure from Sweden was at the advice of his.lawyer, which is what we pay lawyer's for. If he hadn't listened to his lawyer's advice, he'd be in a cold cell in the US with the lights on 24/7. Flight proves nothing about the rape allegations. Nor does the fact he sought asylum in the Eucadorian Emabassy.
This from the 'so called' preliminary interviews by the Stockholm Police. translated into English.
ASSANGE & SWEDEN • POLICE INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS
Anna Ardin
Date: 21 August 2010
Interviewing officer: Sara Wennerblom
Type of interview: Per telephone; not recorded
Type of protocol: Summary by interviewing officer
"According to Anna, “everything went so fast”. He tore off her clothes and in the
process pulled at and broke her necklace. Anna tried to put some clothes back on,
because it all went so fast and she felt uncomfortable; but Assange immediately took
them off again. Anna states that in fact she felt that she no longer wanted to go any
further, but that it was too late to tell Assange to stop, as she had “gone along this far”.
She thought she “had only herself to blame”. She therefore allowed Assange to remove
all of her clothes.
Then they lay down on the bed, Anna on her back and Assange on top of her. Anna
sensed that Assange wanted to insert his penis in her vagina right away, which she did
not want because he was not wearing a condom. She therefore tried to twist her hips to
the side and squeeze her legs together in order to prevent penetration. Anna tried
several times to reach for a condom, but Assange stopped her from doing so by
holding her arms and prying open her legs while trying to penetrate her with his penis
without a condom. Anna says that eventually she was on the verge of tears because she
was held fast and could not get a condom, and felt that ‘this can end badly’.
"Anna states that in fact she felt that she no longer wanted to go any
further, but that it was too late to tell Assange to stop, as she had “gone along this far”.
She thought she “had only herself to blame”. She therefore allowed Assange to remove
all of her clothes."
To my question Anna replies that Assange must have known that Anna was trying to reach
for a condom, and that he therefore held her arms to prevent her from doing so." (related in the third person)
Donald Boström
Date: 20 September 2010
Interviewing officer: Mats Gehlin
Also present:Police officer Ewa Olofsson as witness
Type of interview: In person; audio-recorded
Type of protocol: Verbatim transcript (slightly edited in this translation)
MG: So, how and when did this come…. That is, when she called and told you this….
that things had happened with this Sofia.… And that you, even then, she told you what
was true and that.… What was your impression of her when she related what she said
she had experienced?
DB: My impression was that — partly, I was of course bewildered that suddenly it is a
completely different picture…. But then I believe that my impression was that she was
credible, and there was a little of this — one is inclined to believe a woman who has
been mistreated. It is like that, in some way; it is sort of…. So that was my immediate
impression.…
But at the same time, I began to think: How can it be possible? For, if they are
having sex, consensual according to her, and something happens that she experiences
as an assault, how can she nevertheless gladly arrange a crayfish party, let him remain
in her flat, share a bed and so forth? I felt that there is something here that does not add
up. So I had the feeling that she was a credible person, yet there was something about
her story that did not add up......And although it may seem conspiratorial, there have been many episodes
throughout history where a girl with a short skirt has been sent in. There was a case not
so long ago in Russia…. And we talked about just that case. We also talked about
Vanunu, the Israeli scientist who revealed Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons. That
was the same thing: They sent a girl to his hotel room, and that was that. Then they
could transport him to Israel and so on."
Matt, all of this, plus much, much more, can be found here, http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf
The link to the the police interviews with the principal parties, friends and relatives.
I don't really recommend that you read this as the truth seems to irritate your convoluted view of reality. It just can't be your blinding hatred of Assange, that's causing you to defend these perjuring harridans, so I ask with the greatest respect: if you are still a virgin? Do you think defending Anna and Sofia will help you finally... well, you know what?
(Note that Anna Ardin's and Sofia Wilen's testimony are summaries narrated by the police interviewer and not recorded, while Julian Assange's and others were recorded.)
"..... don't really recommend that you read this as the truth seems to irritate your convoluted view of reality....." LOL! All that dribbling and you still fail to acknowledge that a$$nut took it from his word vs theirs to his word vs theirs plus avoiding arrest plus running away plus bail jumping plus seeking asylum from a despot! You want to concentrate on one tiny aspect of the case because you want to believe it makes your "hero" a victim of a big conspiracy, and completely ignore everything before and since seeing as the facts are simply too painful for you to handle. Your determination to avoid the truth is so funny! Seriously, start keeping a diary of all your "thoughts" as it will be a sure-fire hit as a study text for extreme self-delusion and denial for psychology students.
/Smiley because your silliness make me laugh so hard.
@ Matt Bryant Tuesday 23 April 8:20 GMT
" A$$nut admitted to the Swedish authorities in preliminary questioning that he had indeed had nonconsensual sex because he did not understand local laws."
@ Local G Tuesday 23 April 20:31
""admitted to the Swedish authorities in preliminary questioning that he had indeed had nonconsensual sex" Really? Can you provide that citation?"
"The rest is silence"
".....Can you provide that citation?...."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/13/julian-assange-extradition-appeal-hearing-day-two-live-coverage
"....Ben Emmerson QC, his barrister, admitted that the women involved may have found Assange's behaviour "disreputable, discourteous, disturbing, or even pushing towards the boundaries of what they were comfortable with" – discussing, for example, Assange's initiating sex with one woman while she was asleep...." << That's his own lawyer admitting to the "sex by surprise" accusation during the extradition appeal hearing.
MB "right up to the point where A$$nut admitted to the Swedish authorities in preliminary questioning that he had indeed had nonconsensual sex."
LG "Can you provide that citation?"
MB Blah, Blah Blah"That's his own lawyer admitting to the "sex by surprise" accusation during the extradition appeal hearing."
Apparently, Matt, You did not read the Court's discussion of midnight boners in narrow beds.
"3:50pm: Emmerson goes into detail about Assange's sharing a single bed with a woman – to laughter in the court.
3.58pm: The question is did she consent to his getting an erection, says Emmerson, Assange's barrister.
"The question is what he does with it," says Mr Justice Ouseley."
Ben Emmerson, Assange's barrister, says the idea of isolating a moment of lack of consent in an encounter that was consenting both before and after "is crazy".
Finally, Matt, I don't think a defendant's lawyer can make an admission for that defendant without that defendant's approval.
I have a copy of the preliminary questioning. If you'd like to cite that interview and not the Guardian's reporti of the extradition hearing in a London court, I can wait until you find it. :O)
".....Apparently, Matt, You did not read the Court's discussion of midnight boners in narrow beds....." SCHWING! Yes, once agin, Local Dupe has lost the argument and tries to hide it by diverting off on another point.
"....Ben Emmerson, Assange's barrister, says the idea of isolating a moment of lack of consent in an encounter that was consenting both before and after "is crazy"....." Gee, what a shame that the UK court agreed that what A$$nut is accused of would be considered rape here in the UK too (http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/). Oh, has that been pointed out on these forums many times before? Why, yes it has! Do try and pay attention.
"....Finally, Matt, I don't think a defendant's lawyer can make an admission for that defendant without that defendant's approval....." Well, just wait until A$$nut ends up in a Swedish court and maybe you'll see if the Swedish court raise the issue of Mr Emmerson's admission! Not much chance of that whilst A$$nut keeps on commiting new crimes (like bail jumping) in an attempt to avoid standing trial for old ones. But, what the heck, as has also been pointed out here before, the littel scroat already had a long criminal record even before he made his "mistake about consent".
Don't be silly, Local Dupe, we're all already sitting down as there is no point calling witnesses until it gets to a courtroom, and A$$nut has shown he has no intention of letting justice take its course, despite his pretences at a higher moral stance. Despite Ben Emerson's admission in a UK court, and despite A$$nut's admissions in Sweden, it all counts for naught as the convicted criminal A$$nut is effectively on the run.
".....the two Swedish putanas....." Strange how the two - especially Anna Ardin - were viewed as valued members of the local Leftie community, right up until they insulted the image of The Great St Jules. Now you lot are falling over yourselves to make slanderous attacks on them!
If no witnesses have been called, you are the silly one for behaving as if Anna Ardin is no less than Caesar's wife. And holding up her interview as a little more than apostolic.
The two "were viewed as valued members of the local Leftie community." Aw, c'mon Matt, when a mole infiltrates a group -- you do agree that moles infiltrate groups? -- don't they want to be viewed as valued members? I doubt that Sofia Willen was anything more than a groupie/dingbat.
"Why The Best Spies in Mossad And The CIA Are Women."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/crossingborders/2012/09/30/why-the-best-spies-in-mossad-and-the-cia-are-women/
"Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar" by Craig Murray September 11, 2012 1:05 p
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/
Do you know him? He was the UK's ambassador to Uzbekistan early last decade. You probably hate him. No matter.
It is quite sad that nothing exposes your willingness to ignore reality than your infatuation with A$$nut. And Craig Murray? Seriously? The guy is like the Bernard Manning of the Left, no better than that other rabid self-publicist and social embarrassment George Galloway (http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/08/20/george-galloway-calling-it-rape-must-delight-the-pentagon/). I suggest you try some more objective and adult reading:
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2013/02/no-exception-assange-rape-apologetics-and-left
Want to understand how the whole "Anna Ardin is a CIA spy" was spoonfed to you? Read this (http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/olbermann-assange-and-the-holo)
Yes, you are being laughed at right now.
1) Why didn't Anna warn Sofia that Julian had raped her?
2) Why did Anna celebrate Julian's company after he raped her, with a crayfish party and by tweeting complementary remarks about him to her friends? Letting Assange stay in her flat for a week after he plundered her privates?
3) When Sofia Wilen went to the police to get Julian to take a HIV test, why did Anna go along only for support and not to make a similar demand? Does she have HIV and would have tested poz?
4) Was Anna Ardin a mole? No one cares if she worked for the CIA, KGB, Mossad, or FCO, as long as SHE WAS AN AGENT WORKING FOR SOME NEFARIOUS AGENCY.
Spare us all your subterfuge, your switching of subjects, your straw men, your ducking of questions. Your ad hominem cuteness.
Answer these questions or point to where you already have answered them exactly as I asked them, or kindly STFU.
If you don't answer them, I laugh in your pathetic face.
You're just rebleating that blind apologist schpiel.
"1) Why didn't Anna warn Sofia that Julian had raped her?...." What, was Anna Ardin under some form of legal obligation to tell everyone that A$$nut was a rather poor choice of sexual partner? Excuse me, but the last time someone was raped around these parts I don't recall her ringing up ever woman for miles to give them chapter and verse on it, she simply went to the police to get him arrested. I had some gypsies "tarmac" my drive a few years back and it broke up in the first heavy rain of the winter, how many people from how wide an audience do I have to warn to meet your obligation before I can complain to local Trading Standards about it?
".....2) Why did Anna celebrate Julian's company after he raped her....." She celebrated the company of her fellow Leftie loon groupies, not A$$nut, at a pre-arranged event she probably felt obliged to host. Her own gushing text whitters on about the people, not A$$nut. She was obviously enamoured with the idea of being in the "in crowd", which is probably when she had sex with A$$nut in the first place. I bet a lot of that enamourment has disappeared since the Left started rabidly smearing her.
".....3) When Sofia Wilen went to the police to get Julian to take a HIV test, why did Anna go along only for support and not to make a similar demand?....." Oh come on, that is just desperate! There is no law says an acquaintance can't accompany someone to provide moral support.
"......Does she have HIV and would have tested poz?....." That's just a very low attempt to smear.
"......4) Was Anna Ardin a mole?...." ROFLMAO! Are you seriously going to repeat that Olberman rubbish? Why don't you just claim she faked the Appolo moon missions whilst you're at it, or that she was the shooter on the Grassy Knoll. Pathetic.
".....Answer these questions...." All answered, by the links already provided in previous posts which you obviously couldn't find an adult to read to you. You failed again. Enjoy!
".....By the way, your defense of Anna Ardin....." I see that, once again, you fail to counter a single argument. I hope you're not on A$$nut's legal team or he'll be able to get a retrial due to his counsel's incompetence. But what am I saying - A$$nut has no intention of ever surrendering himself to a court of law, he thinks his holiness put him above the law!
Don't worry, even you'll have plenty of time to come to your senses seeing as A$$nut is probably going to be enjoying the confines of that Embassy for a few years yet! One would have thought that your long and continuous record of being proven both wrong and naive would have conditioned you to accepting defeat more gracefully.
".... he could be extradited....." Put that zombie argument back in it's grave, it's been shot down so many times I'm surprised even you could be so desperate as to try wheeling it out again. A$$nut doesn't want to go back to Sweden because he doesn't want to be convicted for rape and spend a couple of years in Swedish prison, end of.
".....I'd rather be right....." But you're never right, case in point being how you have still not countered any of the points raised. Face it, other than supplying an hilarious insight into the deluded mind of the sheeple, you're just wasting bandwidth.
If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times.
Once Assange is in a Swedish jail there is nothing to prevent him from being extradited to the US or anywhere.
In the Q&A after the Swedish justice spoke at Adelaide, he told everyone interested enough that if Assange were in a Swedish jail, he could be extradited EXTRAJUDICIALLY. Obviously Assange does not want that and remains under the protection of Ecuador
"would have conditioned you to accepting defeat more gracefully.
To answer you let me paraphrase the great 19th century American statesman Henry Clay: I'd rather be right than overtop the jabbering of Matt Bryant.
Anna replies to the Judge in the third person:
"What, was Anna Ardin under some form of legal obligation to tell everyone that A$$nut was a rather poor choice of sexual partner?"
Judge: Weren't you worried about HIV the first time he boned you? Worried that the discondomizing of his wiener might lead to a STD? You could have warned Sofia not even to go out with him.
Anna: That was Sofia's look out. Not mine. I'm not my sister's keeper, Dude.
The court room falls silent.
All fantasy seeing as yor Holy St Jules has no intention of taking the discussion anywhere near a court of law. Only you're too busy drinking the koolaid and rebleating the smears against Anna Ardin because it's easier for you than facing up to the simple truth that A$$nut screwed up.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
