Trump

[pogo]

The criteria you've used (number of complainants, similarity of complaint, a consistent history, settled law suits) apply to Clinton as well. The scale is likely different and in no way a migiation for Trump's behaviour.

Trump has a pattern of sexual assaults, if any of the women accusing him can be believed, as well has his own admissions and boasts.

But Bill Clinton has (or had) a pattern of sexual infidelities, not assaults. The only exception is Juanita Broaddrick, who claimed Clinton raped her. But the length of time, her not coming forward to seek a criminal prosecution or file a civil lawsuit, and her denials and sworn statements that nothing happened, make it the sketchiest of the claims against him. Clinton certainly is a serial adulterer, but there is little credible evidence of sex abuse, despite people looking for it for decades.

As for Assange, his case is very different, but he had a simple choice. If innocent he should have stayed in Sweden and let justice take its course. He certainly should have accepted the outcome of the extradition process and British justice once all his appeals had taken course. Instead he has concocted ridiculous conspiracy theories to justify his refusal. The only plausible explanation is he’s guilty and he knows it, as his other justifications are just too far fetched to be believed.

[tufty]

The only plausible explanation is he’s guilty and he knows it, as his other justifications are just too far fetched to be believed.

No, it's not the only plausible explanation. Given the US's extreme retaliatory behaviour against its whistleblowers, it's far from implausible that they would apply pressure to get him extradited to the US. And given that he's the man who published a lot of things the majority of governments would rather have kept secret, it's not exactly implausible those governments, and in particular the UK government, would go along with American demands for extradition.

And even if *you* dont believe that, all that's necessary to blow away your "he's too scared to face justice, therefore he is guilty" bullshit is for *Assange* to believe that.

[gravy]

If you want to play that gane pogo, the Swedish authorities have repeatedly refused to interview Assange about the allegations and instead concentrated on securing deportation.

The only plausible explanation blah blah blah etc

[pogo]

The only plausible explanation is he’s guilty and he knows it, as his other justifications are just too far fetched to be believed.

No, it's not the only plausible explanation. Given the US's extreme retaliatory behaviour against its whistleblowers, it's far from implausible that they would apply pressure to get him extradited to the US. And given that he's the man who published a lot of things the majority of governments would rather have kept secret, it's not exactly implausible that other governments, and in particular the that of the UK, would go along with American demands for extradition.

If he is scared of extradition to the US, then he should not have come back to the UK, with their close relationship to the US and many past extraditions. The idea that it more likely to happen if he goes to Sweden is ridiculous. First under the European Arrest Warrant he is doubly protected; once extradited because of it he cannot then be extradited to e.g. the US without the consent of both Sweden and the UK. Second the idea that Sweden is a worse place to be, for whistleblowers like him, is nonsense. He was actually in Sweden because of its much greater protection for Wikileaks activities.

He is probably doing the worst thing possible to avoid extradition to the US. He won’t be in there forever. There’s a ten year statute of limitations on the rape charge, so if he is still there in 2020 the charges will be dropped, the EAW will expire, and he will be turfed out of there. The US have had ten years to plan for that moment, and may have charges sitting on file, ready to be revealed and turned into an extradition request the moment he escapes the Ecuadorian embassy. He has long outstayed any visa he had to be in the UK, so may be helpfully detained by the UK border authorities while the US get their act together.

If you want to play that gane pogo, the Swedish authorities have repeatedly refused to interview Assange about the allegations and instead concentrated on securing deportation.

That is their right; they have their laws that apply to this and expect them to be followed. Their courts agreed in issuing the arrest warrant, the British courts agreed it was valid and Assange had no valid reason to avoid extradition. In general criminal suspects can’t pick and choose the place they are questioned, especially when there is every reason to think they are doing it to avoid justice.

[KlaxonCow]

If Assange is still in the Ecuadorian embassy by 2020, then he would have voluntarily imprisoned himself there for ten years.

I simply ask you this. If the European Arrest Warrant expires, as the charges pass Sweden's statute of limitations, and Assange still refuses to leave, choosing to continue to imprison himself because, by his version of events, he still fears for his life from being extradited to America, where Members of Congress have openly asked for him to face the death penalty, then will this change your interpretation of these events?

(As Tufty notes, it does not require that the US really is planning to extradite him to put him on a rigged show trial for the death penalty, it only requires that Assange himself believes that to be true and is thus genuinely in fear for his life. Even if this fear is not warranted in actuality. Wikileaks has pissed off a lot of people, so maybe his paranoia is actually unjustified, but you can perfectly understand why he might genuinely believe it.)

[gravy]

Pogo's claiming Assange's right to asylum in Shows bad faith yet the Swedish authorities right to not move forward with the case against doesn't.

Yet again, arbitrary and inconsistent positions without the backing of any principles.

[pogo]

I simply ask you this. If the European Arrest Warrant expires, as the charges pass Sweden's statute of limitations, and Assange still refuses to leave, choosing to continue to imprison himself because, by his version of events, he still fears for his life from being extradited to America, where Members of Congress have openly asked for him to face the death penalty, then will this change your interpretation of these events?

An interesting hypothetical. If after the statute of limitations expires he still does not leave the embassy, citing fears for his safety even in the UK, then his claims will be more credible. But he has never said he will, he is as far as we know only there to avoid being extradited.

And it is just a hypothetical, until we see what happens as 2020 approaches. They could drop the case sooner. He might decide enough is enough and walk out of there to face justice. Maybe even the next US president will be much more sympathetic towards him and Wikileaks, so his fears of being extradited there disappear.

Pogo's claiming Assange's right to asylum in Shows bad faith yet the Swedish authorities right to not move forward with the case against doesn't.

A right of asylum normally only is granted to people fleeing persecution. This can take many forms; asylum can be granted when fleeing oppressive or corrupt regimes, or countries at war, or persecution due to religion, ethnicity or other discrimination. None of that applies to Assange. None of it describes the British legal system.

[gravy]

So now you're claiming that the Ecuadorian government have a worse working knowledge of the asylum laws than bloke on the internet who's repeatedly been show to have scant knowledge of what he's talking about?

You might want to stop digging at this point.

Diplomatic asylum is granted on the basis of political persecution even if it's under the guise of justice. That's what

But the U.K. can challenge this if they feel Ecuador doesn't have the right to offer asylum and the U.K. doesn't have an obligation to respect their decision. It'd be Ecuador's responsibility to demonstrate that too. We haven't, Assange's asylum status has gone unchallenged.

Again applying your principles, if we've avoided the legal system it must show we know we have no case.

Anyway. Sweden has finally accepted the chance to move this forward and will be interviewing him on the 18th.

If the case is dropped at that point you accept he's innocent?

[KlaxonCow]

An interesting hypothetical. If after the statute of limitations expires he still does not leave the embassy, citing fears for his safety even in the UK, then his claims will be more credible. But he has never said he will, he is as far as we know only there to avoid being extradited.

Yes, but according to his version of events, what he's ultimately avoiding is extradition to the US. Avoiding extradition to Sweden is merely, as he proposes it, to avoid being extradited via Sweden or the UK or being intercepted in transport to the US, as he fears for his life.

If Sweden drops the case and he remains in the Ecuadorian embassy - continuing to voluntarily imprison himself there for more than ten years - then surely this must completely flip the interpretation? Because then he must be telling the truth that he fears extradition to the US - whether that is a justified fear or not, he believes it - or why continue to unnecessarily stay there?

Of course, it is a hypothetical and we need to see what he and others do by 2020. But I emphasise the fact that he has effectively imprisoned himself - he is not really at liberty at all, only at liberty from European / American jurisdiction - so, as time ticks by, does his case (not that it's necessarily true, but that he believes it to be true) not get increasingly more credible?

If he'd allowed himself to be extradited to Sweden then would he have served 10 years for the charges against him?

[pogo]

Ecuador I’m sure has a very good knowledge of the asylum laws. They are very familiar with cases of Ecuadorians taking advantage of such laws. Unfortunately they have been Ecuadorians fleeing the corrupt regime in Ecuador.

Ecuador journalist Emilio Palacio granted asylum in the US

So whatever their reasons for sheltering Assange are, it has nothing to do with respect for press freedom as they have none. It may explain though why they are sheltering Assange. Corrupt regimes, particularly in Latin America, often invoke the US and its allies as the cause of their ills, and look for ways to annoy the US. They probably though did not expect Assange to be with them for quite so long.

[gravy]

An interesting hypothetical. If after the statute of limitations expires he still does not leave the embassy, citing fears for his safety even in the UK, then his claims will be more credible. But he has never said he will, he is as far as we know only there to avoid being extradited.

Yes, but according to his version of events, what he's ultimately avoiding is extradition to the US. Avoiding extradition to Sweden is merely, as he proposes it, to avoid being extradited via Sweden or the UK or being intercepted in transport to the US, as he fears for his life.

If Sweden drops the case and he remains in the Ecuadorian embassy - continuing to voluntarily imprison himself there for more than ten years - then surely this must completely flip the interpretation? Because then he must be telling the truth that he fears extradition to the US - whether that is a justified fear or not, he believes it - or why continue to unnecessarily stay there?

Of course, it is a hypothetical and we need to see what he and others do by 2020. But I emphasise the fact that he has effectively imprisoned himself - he is not really at liberty at all, only at liberty from European / American jurisdiction - so, as time ticks by, does his case (not that it's necessarily true, but that he believes it to be true) not get increasingly more credible?

If he'd allowed himself to be extradited to Sweden then would he have served 10 years for the charges against him?

There's an assumption he'd have been charged (he hasn't) and if so would have been found guilty.

Iirc the women involved in the allegations remaining don't want him prosecuted so it's hard to see how a successful case could be made against him.

But as said. He's not worried about those charges

[gravy]

Ecuador I’m sure has a very good knowledge of the asylum laws. They are very familiar with cases of Ecuadorians taking advantage of such laws. Unfortunately they have been Ecuadorians fleeing the corrupt regime in Ecuador.

Ecuador journalist Emilio Palacio granted asylum in the US

So whatever their reasons for sheltering Assange are, it has nothing to do with respect for press freedom as they have none. It may explain though why they are sheltering Assange. Corrupt regimes, particularly in Latin America, often invoke the US and its allies as the cause of their ills, and look for ways to annoy the US. They probably though did not expect Assange to be with them for quite so long.

Obviously irrelevant but also technically different, that's political asylum. We're talking about diplomatic asylum.

Them being jerks, or not, doesn't have any effect on what international law is or how it's interpreted?

That's kind of the point here, a legal systems are meant to be practiced according to principle irrespective of the person it's applied to.

Otherwise you're Trump, baying for Hilary to be locked up irrespective of any legal due process.

[pogo]

If he'd allowed himself to be extradited to Sweden then would he have served 10 years for the charges against him?

I think, though I’m not sure and can’t be bothered to look it up, that if he had allowed justice to run and been found guilty he would likely have been sentenced to less than ten years, much less with probation, and maybe be out by now. But it’s not just the time, but the shame and damage to his reputation of a rape conviction.

But even then I’m not sure fleeing justice helps him. He’s Australian, so needs a visa to travel pretty much anywhere. And countries are free to decline any visa application they don’t like. Countries could in future treat him as a sex offender anyway, or as a scofflaw who fled justice for a decade, and deny him a visa.

[pogo]

Obviously irrelevant but also technically different, that's political asylum. We're talking about diplomatic asylum.

Them being jerks, or not, doesn't have any effect on what international law is or how it's interpreted?

There is no right to diplomatic asylum under international law. Sure, someone can turn up at an embassy and if it does not turf them out they are safe from immediate arrest by the host country. But there is no mechanism by which the fugitive can then be made a diplomat, and so immune to the host country’s laws.

Generally there are two ways to resolve such impasses. Either sneak out the fugitive and get them out of the country somehow. Or negotiate with the host country to allow safe passage. Sneaking Assange out is probably impossible, given his location, the interest in his movements, and modern technology. And the UK can’t let him go free, their hands are tied by the EAW, until it is withdrawn as is likely in 2020 when the rape case runs out of time.

[gravy]

Someone being made a diplomat? Are you talking about diplomatic immunity? It's a different thing that diplomatic asylum.

Diplomatic asylum is made possible to by international law. There was a chance for it to be explicitly sanctioned but legislators specifically worded it in a way to make it possible.

All of this doesn't matter.

Assange has a right to do this, has tried to resolve the legal issues of the Swedish case in good faith without putting himself in what he sees as mortal danger. He's not 'avoiding justice' he's asking for the next step to be taken to see if there's even justification for a charge.

You can draw your own conclusions from that.

Sweden are well within their rights to concentrate on rendition extradition rather than justice and have done so.

You can draw your own conclusions from that too.