Julian Assange extradition judge refuses request for delay

Go right ahead. Name them all. Fine by me as I have no dog in the fight.

 

Why would you ask that they all be named - once again you can not resist being obtuse. I am not going to list all 520 out of 535 in congress.

What I will do is list who is not an "evil bastard" out of the 535 .

Rep. Peter Welch [D-VT-At Large]
Rep. Thomas Massie [R-KY-4]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA-13] Y
Rep. Walter Jones Jr. [R-NC-3]
Rep. Thomas Garrett Jr. [R-VA-5]
Rep. Ted Yoho [R-FL-3]
Rep. Paul Gosar [R-AZ-4]
Rep. Scott Perry [R-PA-4]
Rep. John Conyers Jr. [D-MI-13]
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA-48]
Rep. Ro Khanna [D-CA-17]
Rep. Bobby Rush [D-IL-1]
Rep. Jeff Duncan [R-SC-3]
Rep. Peter DeFazio [D-OR-4]

In addition to the above Tulsi Gabbard and Rand Paul. The other 520 are "Evil Bastards".

 

Somehow, that does not work for me, but anyway, have it your way. Cheers.

 

What does not work for you ? You don't even know what these folks did to make them Evil Bastards.

Have you been reduced to unintelligible gibberish ?

 

You are calling the tune Giftedone. I am just going with the bouncing balls you post. You use your big broad brush on a whole bunch of people, and fail to explain why. That's okay. I get it.

 

Assange is a hero who exposed Bush's war crimes.

 

You don't know what brush I used - and never bothered to ask .. but yet you accuse me of using a broad brush. That's OK - I get it .. you have no material and so you default to "obtuse" and now you are building strawmen on your decent into depravity.

 

I do know what broad-brush it was. You tarred more than 500 individual US politicians with it, and not one jot of justification offered, other than to name a handful whom you regard as meritorious. Cheers.

 

You never asked for justification - so you have no idea what brush they were tarred with. You are just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

You asked who these "Evil Bastards " in Congress were - and I told you. .

 

In your own way....by giving me the names of a handfull of people who are still on your Christmas list.

 

More obtuse gibberish - do you have anything resembling coherent thought ?

Next you will be wanting to debate what the word "The" means.

 

Dear oh dear. Have you never been brushed off politely before?

 

How about you just stop talking

 

To you? Okay. Done.

 

I expected that you WOULD NOT know them. It was 50-50, but you clarified. My expectations turned out to be right.

 

Bush's war crimes and much more.

 

UPDATE


https://news.yahoo.com/sweden-says-dropping-assange-rape-131939108.html

Sweden drops Assange rape investigation
after nearly 10 years​

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - A Swedish prosecutor dropped a rape investigation against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, ending the near decade-old case that had sent the anti-secrecy campaigner into hiding in London's Ecuadorian embassy to avoid extradition. . . . .



Does he get an apology for the near a decade he has had to "hide" ?


Moi

No ​

 

No the case goes on. It also appears to be publicly accepted that the judge should not be ruling due to a conflict of interest. People thought she was going to step down but now appears she will be staying in charge while having another judge under her control in court.

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/...ges-judge-says-wikileaks-lawyer-jen-robinson/

The thing is this is given no publicity in the UK. I am not saying the BBC did not take a minute or two to say what you post does, they did ...but there is absolutely zero on Assange. This is not because he does not have support, he does but even when people like Pilger come to see him and when there are protests, no publicity is given. Because of this the general public, who I think could easily be moved to demand he get his rights, remain silent. Gets you kind of thinking any belief that we still have any kind of free press is silly.

The idea of the UK handing someone over to another country for such 'crimes' as making public war crimes which will result in a prison sentence of longer than his life and possibly even the death penalty is really not what most people think is 'British'.

 

He is being held and tortured in Belmarsh by the Brits, so it no longer matter what Sweden does, it becomes academic.

 

Why would he get an apology? It was his ongoing criminal behaviour of jumping bail and choosing to hide out in the embassy for all those years that rendered the case nonviable in the first place. If anything he should be apologising to them for all his empty accusations of conspiracy and generally wasting their time rather than facing up to the legitimate legal processes.

 

He knew the "fix" was real.
Or why were the rape charges dropped.

It was about "rape" and not WikiLeakes, officially that is.


Not go watch, "The Fugitive"

 

Why would Trump want Assange prosecuted? He LOVES WikiLeaks. Said so many times.

 

He didn't know anything, any more than we could say we know he is guilty of the sexual offences he was accused of. He suspected, or claimed to suspect at least. There's no reason to presume any kind of fix. He may well have faced an extradition request from the USA (as he does now) but that's perfectly legitimate. If simply claiming that the system is fixed against you was sufficient to have any legal proceedings unconditionally dropped, no criminal would ever be arrested.

They haven't quite yet, it's just been yet again proposed that they're dropped because there is little prospect of them ever getting to court, rightly or not. His evasion basically worked.

 

From what I can see in that post, I did not actually say that Trump himself wants Assange prosecuted. I don't believe Trump has necessarily wanted all that his team have come up with. An attack on Iran being the obvious example.

Trump has apparently stitched up your courts, the regular ones as well as your Supreme Court for years to come. That is what I commented on.

So, the reality is that Obama did not make moves to bring Assange to court in the US. I have read that this was because he had concerns about this and the freedom of the press. However we do also know that there were moves from the US, that it was wanted by someone, possibly Obama managed this time to say No. So it is on Trump's watch this comes to be and you believe that is cannot be because Trump 'loves' Wikileaks. I am aware that he said this when it was releasing dirt on Hilary but I would be very surprised if this was so as far as Wikileaks itself is concerned regardless of what he said. For Trump I would think, hearing dirt on Hilary fantastic. Thinking about Wikileaks doing the same on him- make sure this never happens.

I am guessing your sentiment comes from your belief that wikileaks is a Trump lover as your papers were saying. On this I relied on someone who I know without question is not a Trump lover and is someone who visited Assange at the Embassy as well as being a Professor of Politics with a particular expertise on Democracy. He believed Assange was right to put this information in, that the US has enormous power in the world and that what happens in the US effects the whole world. According to him it was completely appropriate to let people know what they were letting themselves in for if they voted for her and he spoke about the sad state of democracy in the most powerful country in the world. In a world which supports free speech there was nothing wrong in what Assange did.

Now frankly I am not convinced that we would not be in a possibly as bad maybe worse situation if we had Hilary in power. Rarely have I been so disgusted as to watch her reaction to hearing how Giddafi had been tortured to death. She was clearly well up for more wars so I do not believe the world has necessarily been harmed by missing her.

What does appear to have happened is that the US Democrats have made some moves to becoming a more democratic party which could be what saves Democracy in the US. At the current point in time almost all your politicians are bought.

But back to topic. Do I think Trump would like wikileaks...or possibly more important would I think Trump likes a Free Press. Trump's views on the Press are well known. He sees it as an enemy. I cannot imagine Trump not liking the idea of using Assange to destroy freedom of the press in the West and the US Press seem to be encouraging this move. It might be interesting to know who owns them all.

Now the NYT and the Guardian as well as many others originally loved Wikileaks. What happened to the NYT? I know that what happened to the Guardian was that it was sold and believe it or not formed an alliance with out security services. The Guardian which for a very long time was a British paper which would say what others would not, which was a home for investigative journalism and truth telling, that Guardian is no more.

That is my opinion.

 

What paper ever claimed that WikiLeaks loved Trump? I'm not saying that they have ever loved Trump, personally. I know what Assange himself has said about Trump, and I believe him..