>Aka multiple reasons. I dont believe I am lying here.
You said he is in prison for multiple reasons and then only went on to name the rape case before making assertions about Sweden's rape law next. Yet, Assange is not in prison due to any active rape case against him. You did not provide any other reasons in your comment.
>So you are asserting that I am a liar because rape wasn't illegal in 2010? Sure they updated the law in 2018 but rape was certainly illegal before 2018. What exactly dont i know about?
You claimed falsely that Assange is in prison due to rape allegations. Then you went on to describe the rape law in Sweden according to the latest changes which were not in effect when the case against Assange started. Ignoring your misrepresentation of those laws for the moment, it makes no sense to go on about them if they weren't what the Assange case was actually subjected under.
>This app was created in Sweden: https://legalfling.io/ which by name implies sex is illegal unless steps are taken.
Your argument that "rape is illegal" is that consent apps have been released? You understand that by your logic "renting" or "buying" are illegal unless there's a contract? Also please cite the part of Sweden's rape law that requires written consent.
>Convicted rape is up >1,000% over the last several decades in Sweden. Sweden is the rape capitol of the developed world. Are Swedish men disproportionately rapists compared to other countries like UK, Canada, or USA? Or is it their laws?
Convictions have risen by 75%, not by over 1000%.(1) Even if we ignore your gross misrepresentation of numbers, your argument is that the numbers are inherently wrong when another argument could very much be that the convictions in other countries don't represent the actual cases and might be far too low. I am not arguing for either but your logic is obviously flawed here.
Sweden is also not "the rape capital" of the world. This is a classical populist headline which is obviously incorrect after any closer inspection.(2)
(1) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sweden-crime-rape-law-trf...
(2) https://www.thelocal.se/20170221/why-sweden-is-not-the-rape-...
>Incorrect. That is what the prosecutor alleged but the women did not. It was fully consensual.
Actually the accuser said exactly that.(3) So it wasn't something the "prosecutor alleged" as you're claiming.
(3) https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange...
>Trump never ordered anything. It was public knowledge that he was approached on the subject and he refused to take part. Saying he wasn't going to influence the justice system. Either stopping the efforts put forth by Obama, pardoning or otherwise. As I said, he made a huge mistake doing that, pardoning assange would have been a very smart idea. Assange being thrown out of the embassy had nothing to do with trump. So ya absolutely, as you said obama era and dnc leaks is entirely what this is about.
I did not say Trump personally ordered anything. I said these things happened under his administration. And the "efforts put for by Obama" didn't result in Assange being charged. It was Trump's administration that actually charged Assange.(4)
(4) https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/20/15377996/julian-assange-w...
>I like wikileaks and such, so far the USA hasnt done much, The extradition isnt happening as far as I know. I highly doubt the appeal will work out. I guess we find out tomorrow, but i doubt the USA wins.
The extradition has only been stopped because the UK court found Assange's mental health too fragile to survive under US prison conditions. The rest of the extradition was not rejected by the UK. Assange is therefore far away from being released, I'm afraid.
>Assange will likely soon be a free man and he'll get the Epstein treatment from the DNC.
Assange's extradition was requested during Trump's administration. Yet you think the DNC is somehow about to stage an Assange suicide in the event that he might be released.
>You have a very bad understanding of news outlets in the USA. I'm not even sure where to start. You wont believe me anyway, I lie and blatantly misrepresent something.
Given the fact that almost everything you wrote on this topic in your two comments here was either entirely false or a misrepresentation, I do not really think your assumptions on my understanding of US media here do have the merit you think they do.