Of course Trump will let him go. Say what you want about the President, but he’s always been very loyal to his supporters.
Hell, he’s probably nominate Assange as the new head of the FBI.
Ah, the old One Weird Lawyer’s Trick of throwing stuff at the wall and seeing if anything will stick *.
Can’t imagine why he wanted to evade them for so long.
- Also known as, for Britons amongst ye, as The Bobby Sands Special.
Sure, if we thought it was really what they were after. But a lot of us (myself included) think it was something to get him in custody, making it easy for the US to ask for extradition for other stuff.
Hence why I’m not even sure that dropping the charges is enough for him. They could also drop the charges in an attempt to get him to go somewhere more amenable to getting him.
He leaked US secrets. The US likes to punish people for that. Coming up with a bogus rape charge kinda tipped their hand.
Because Sweden would have him in custody, while the UK didn’t. Once they have you in custody, it’s kinda hard to flee.
Seriously, the amount of loops people will go through to deny the obvious. If this was really the issue, then it would have been reported when it happened and dealt with then, not after the U.S. wanted him.
They went on a fishing expedition for something they could charge him for. It’s as obvious as when Trump fired Comey.
Sarcasm? There are plenty of people who helped him who he didn’t reward. He’ll turn on a dime on whether he likes you.
Related to this: his Trump support is why I actually don’t care if the US gets him now (unless it turns out Russians took over or were forcing him). But I still 100% believe that the rape charges were just drummed up strategically.
The U.S. just isn’t ethical about these sorts of things.
Our friend Julian and his unorthodox couch-surfing are in the news again.
It sounds as if the new President of Ecuador views Assange as a headache and an unwelcome houseguest, and is prepared to kick him out, provided Britain gives its undertaking that in the event the US asks for extradition, Britain would impose a “no death penalty” condition on the extradition to the US.
Julian Assange’s fate rests on death penalty assurances, Ecuador’s President says
Julian Assange cannot stay in embassy forever, Ecuador’s President says
I don’t know what law the US would be able to convict Assange under that would allow for the death penalty? Treason would only be applicable if Assange was an American and, in case anyone isn’t aware, he’s not.
That said, as I have noted in other threads, the UK better keep Assange until Trump is out of office. The instant he’s in the US, Assange has a strong motive to provide Trump with information about malfeasance on the part of Democrats (e.g. Clinton) and Trump has a strong motive to pardon Assange.
If he comes here, it won’t turn out for the better. There is no Congressional nor Judicial review of the pardon power. No one can stop it nor question it.
I know everyone is speculating about the British handing him over to the US, but surely they’d like some quality time with him as well, not to mention the rest of the EU? Russia hasn’t been subtle about its activities in the UK or the EU in the last few years. I’d like to talk to him about Russian hacking before I handed him over to anyone, were I in British shoes.
Did WikiLeaks do anything for/against Brexit?
I’m sure Ecuador knows that Assange would not face the death penalty either, but they are trying to be tough after keeping him from us for six years.
Ecuador: We will not have this poor man face the death penalty!!!
U.S.: We promise he will not face the death penalty.
Ecuador: Cool. See ya, Julian.
I am not deeply versed on this at all, but Assange is connected to Nigel Farage (face of the Brexit movement). A quick search indicates that Assange was also publicly in favor of Brexit. The UK and the US both have evidence that Russia funded Ukip/pro-Brexit group. Nigel Farage is also tied to Guccifer 2.0, Russian hackers.
I can’t find (again, on very cursory review) anything that says Wikileaks was dumping data. I do find links between Assange, Russia, and Brexit. I would want to talk to him.
I would imagine that Britain would automatically impose the no-death-penalty condition on any extradition, so Ecuador’s position is just posturing anyway.
Assange’s best hope is that May is gone before this deal goes through. With a different government, extradition might be a negotiated matter or off the table altogether. With May, she’ll send Assange over to Trump wrapped in a bow, with a love note and some flowers.
No it wouldn’t, and no they aren’t. May’s government made the headlines last week precisely because it stopped asking for no-death-penalty assurances for some extraditions. See this article from The Guardian, for example, though the story has been covered by all the major UK newspapers.
But the reaction over that makes it all the more unlikely that they’d drop the condition in such a case. Whatever he did hardly compares with someone who decapitates hostages.
In any case has the US made any moves towards asking for extradition at any time in the last six years?
No; that would be a very public validation of Assange’s grounds for asylum, and would only entrench Ecuador’s protection of him. If the US really does want to extradite him, it’s best for them to keep quiet for now and let Ecuador act on the (professed) belief that he’s out of danger.
As an aside, I found several of the paragraphs of that article troubling, in relation to the two individuals alleged to be involved with ISIS:
The ultimate aim should be a fair trial, with no pre-determination in advance that the two are guilty and should be in jail for the rest of their lives.
If they’re properly brought to justice and there is insufficient evidence, yes, they should walk free.
Northern Piper I agree with you, for what it’s worth. The way we have handled suspected terrorists in the justice system is improper at best.
That’s true, but the government is playing the part of the Prosecutor, so I would hold it as fairly reasonable to say what outcome they are seeking as the Prosecution (or whatever the British term is, if different).
That is so adorably cute and old-fashioned. Not the case in England after 10 years of Blair’s “rebalancing” and “aim to convict the guilty”. 
The Deputy Attorney General in one Canadian province a few years ago sent a memo to all Crown prosecutors which said that their overall goal was to get convictions.
The memo somehow ended up with the press. The assumption was that a Crown prosecutor did not think it accurately set out their legal and constitutional duties.
The Deputy AG was gone within a week or two.