Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Korren]

That is obviously why he does not want to go back to Sweden.

That's not obvious. He might be genuinely paranoid and see CIA plots everywhere, or he might genuinely think that he is innocent but be afraid that he would still be sentenced. He might even just be the kind of person who reacts badly to authority and always tries to push back, regardless.

 

[BenBurch]

Threads about contested court cases seem to attract these people who do not engage in serious discussion, but instead proclaim their faith in authority and in the guilt of the accused. Oddly you don't see the same kind of behaviour from people who doubt the verdict - there's some kind of asymmetrical pathology at work, where certain kinds of non-rational behaviour seem (here at least) to be more common to one mindset than another.

I don't pretend to know why this is, but it's interesting.

Nobody, and I mean Nobody fights extradition on charges like these with multi-million-dollar lawyer teams unless he knows he is guilty.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've slightly rearranged the order of your quotes to match my answer.
Ah, true - if that was the only part you want to refer to, I'm fine with that, and agree that it's completely true. Now the followup question is of course - why does your history stop and start there, and not include the part before that when Ny suggested dates and Hurtig couldn't reach JA, or the dates after this when Ny again suggested dates and Hurtig couldn't reach JA?

I listed a couple things demonstrating Ny was not as perfect as you insist, and you picked one thing not listed and said, 'see, nothing Hurtig says is true because this other thing wasn't'. Neither Hurtig nor Ny are perfect. That's the norm for humans, and even more so for humans in politically influenced situations.

There were efforts on JA's part to cooperate. He was interviewed for an hour by the first investigators. He did offer to come back to Sweden to be interviewed again. He's offered to be interviewed in the UK.

It's not your black and white issue: Ny only trying her best to fulfill her professional obligations while being thwarted by JA at every turn.

It is a complex issue where both sides have legitimate points. And Ny has acted, at times, like an ideologue, not strictly as a professional doing a job.

Then I assume that you are perfectly happy that Sweden does use Lay Judges as part in the lower courts. You have even less information today, than they have in the decision process.

More argument from authority and that secret knowledge thing again. The judges know best, the rest of us, even with a case as opened to the public sphere as this, just couldn't possibly know enough to have a legitimate opinion.

I don't buy it. Feel free to believe it yourself, but continuing to repeat this argument from authority and secret knowledge could exist position is not going to make me change my point of view. I need evidence to change my point of view. I don't see any and the chances of secret evidence is looking more and more like what might exist is exculpatory, if anything.

...Yes, and as I have quoted the text before, the judges in England did not agree with him.

There is more than one legal argument to base such a decision on.

A) The prosecutor's hands are tied, Ny cannot accommodate JA.
B) The prosecutor could accomodate JA but doesn't have to, the burden is on JA if the prosecutor insists. The UK court, following legal technicalities, concurred.

B seems more likely to me.

That's your claim. You still haven't shown where that contradiction is. In one quote Ny says unless something new comes up, she's ready to charge after completing the interviews. In another quote she says that she cannot charge today. Those two statements are not contradictory.

If one was a politician maybe those two statements are not contradictory.

But let's look at it differently. If JA was returned to Sweden and refused to answer any questions of Ny's, refused to participate in an interview, would the prosecutor withhold charging JA indefinitely? Ny is using a legal contortion to talk out of both sides of her mouth.


And your position also begs the question, the evidence is extremely weak, so is basing a conviction on it wishful thinking on Ny's part or a shameful statement about a fair trial in Sweden?

Yes, I do not dispute this, and as has been explained several times, the prosecution has no obligation to release anything to a suspect, only to a person that is charged.

Do you know what a non sequitur is? How does "no obligation to disclose" negate the fact the email exchanges in all probability favor JA's case?

And as I explained, I do not presume to be able to judge the value of this information.

Yes, because you prefer to defer to authority. In this case which is pretty straight forward, I don't have that problem.

See above.

Indeed. See my first 4 paragraphs.

 

[tyr_13]

And you claim I dodged?

You did. What is the source of your information? If there is more relevant information, would you have access to it? Are you able to correctly interpret the information you have available? The first one is the important question you keep dodging.

But yes, roll your eyes. Not only did I 'dodge' you in my sleep, I dodged you with my sleep. And work. And building a desk.

It's a simple matter, tyr, you don't need citations or complex arguments. What is the evidence that you think says JA will be convicted in a court?

Funny, I thought you wanted it all. Why would a simple argument be better? Also, you know full well that the standard is not evidence that I think will convict JA in a court. Not every extradition hearing and investigation hearing is a full trial. They are to make sure legal procedure is being followed and bounds are not being overstepped. They are not to determine guilt. That's what we have full trials for.

My argument is that they at least have the reports of two women and the statements of Assange plus the expertise and training to interpret the relevant laws, legal arguments, and those statements. This is enough to continue proceedings and extradition in my view. That several courts have reviewed and accepted this (you've read some of their reasoning) further suggests that a trial would likely be warranted. I speculate that the authorities have additional evidence, knowledge or interpretation that makes them believe charges have a chance of being upheld. I defer to the experts on this because of the arguments put forth and their access to information that I have no reason to expect I'd have access to, or that others not involved in the case have access to.

I put more stock in the women's reports than you do, as I reject your reasons for dismissing them, to put it lightly.

The appeal to authority fallacy does not rely on a person saying, "the courts are always right". You and Here_to_learn are both argung the authority of the court while not articulating any argument the court expertise supports.

Here_to_learn has indeed linked to the rulings, and you've even discussed some of them although you misinterpreted much. But for reviewing if the prosecution should continue and if extradition is warranted, well, what the court says is the legal course is the legal course until changed. Another court could tell if the lower court was in fact wrong in it's ruling. Even if Assange is acquitted, that doesn't mean the courts or prosecution overstepped.

I think so. And I'd say Ny was behind it, not "the courts".

The courts agree with her use of power and arguments, so, it would be 'the courts'. Your evidence that it's all politically motivated seems to come from the same evidence that I use for speculating on additional 'evidence'. I don't doubt that if Assange weren't famous he would not have been pursued as much, but accused rapists not being pursued is a bad thing.

That's an argument from authority fallacy no matter how you parse it.

That's how the law works you know! But it isn't a fallacy. I'm not saying that the courts must be right in everything about this case but in assessing extradition and continued investigation. They are more likely to be right however. (For those who don't know the limitations of the fallacy and are interested.)

Your argument is not convincing.

It wasn't just that the women didn't object enough or soon enough. That's not my argument which is why it is a straw man.

No, not just, and I didn't say you said 'just'. But it is an objection you raised, and it is a bad argument. It's a standard argument leveled at rape accusers.

It's that they did not object until they found out about each other. That's different than simply not coming forward right away.

Which is another objection you raised and hypothesized about, but one easily explained by other hypothesis. This is another bad reason to dismiss their reports.

To say the courts ruled in a way I disagree with, they must be politically motivated or something' is another distortion of what I said. You ignore my point and make up your own, that is another straw man.

I didn't say you said that.

That's why I'm trying to get you to articulate the wheat of your position instead of this chaff.

Let me say it again:

That there are 2 women with similar stories goes against JA.
That the women colluded nullifies the weight of their testimony.

It amounts to he said/she said and nothing else.

All there is here is a couple of women whose testimony can be ripped to shreds based on collusion and apparently incriminating emails between them.

Address my argument, not your distortion of it, please.

So how do you know exactly what he said and she (they) said? Someone does, and they keep agreeing with investigation and extradition.

What is your source of information? It's insufficient to make the assessments that you are.

 

[BenBurch]

Multiples of millions of dollars and thousands of people duped into donating to this little weasel. Such a waste.

I wonder what the sex crime laws in Ecuador are, anyway? Rapists NEVER commit only one or two rapes. I think it would be hilarious if he winds up in an Ecuadorian jail except for the fact that there would be another victim.

 

[tyr_13]

Nobody, and I mean Nobody fights extradition on charges like these with multi-million-dollar lawyer teams unless he knows he is guilty.

Wait, what?

 

[BenBurch]

Wait, what?

I think the fact that he is squirming away like the "le chat" in the "Pepe Le Pew" cartoons can only be because he knows he is guilty.

 

[tyr_13]

I think the fact that he is squirming away like the "le chat" in the "Pepe Le Pew" cartoons can only be because he knows he is guilty.

That's a slippery slope to try to stand on. Who else would do such a thing? A millionaire who, justified or not, doesn't believe he or she would get a fair trial. Or a paranoid delusional. Or someone with enough hubris to believe it's insulting to deal with states and petty laws.

There are many hypothesis, some likely some not, that explain that observation. It's rare that there is an 'only' explanation.

 

[BenBurch]

That's a slippery slope to try to stand on. Who else would do such a thing? A millionaire who, justified or not, doesn't believe he or she would get a fair trial. Or a paranoid delusional. Or someone with enough hubris to believe it's insulting to deal with states and petty laws.

There are many hypothesis, some likely some not, that explain that observation. It's rare that there is an 'only' explanation.

I find the likelihood that he actually believes himself to be innocent as close to zero. He had a lawyer, made an appointment to be interviewed by the police, and next we knew he was in London. Here in the USA, had he run to another state like that, he would have been committing another crime; Unlawful Flight To Avoid Prosecution. There is a reason nations have extradition treaties, and that would be it. That he may ALSO be massively paranoid is almost beyond question. However, his mental derangement in turn does not speak well for the likelihood of his innocence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

These things have been gone over and over in the thread. At some point there is no more to be gained.

You did. What is the source of your information? If there is more relevant information, would you have access to it? Are you able to correctly interpret the information you have available? The first one is the important question you keep dodging.

The evidence is in the netosphere, all of it, and then some.

The argument 'it's not all out there' goes back to that secret evidence, and you cannot even hypothesize what that unknown evidence could be short of an unlikely confession.

How many ways can you say, you couldn't possibly know and how many ways can I say, I think there is enough to safely base a conclusion on?

.... They are not to determine guilt. That's what we have full trials for.

Argument from authority continues, ignoring the fact the court system is susceptible to political and ideological influence.

.... My argument is that they at least have the reports of two women and the statements of Assange plus the expertise and training to interpret the relevant laws, legal arguments, and those statements. This is enough to continue proceedings and extradition in my view. [Argument from authority snipped, it's been addressed.]

I put more stock in the women's reports than you do, as I reject your reasons for dismissing them, to put it lightly.

My opinion leans toward the women exaggerating and revising their stories to fit the legal requirement needed to pursue JA who they were angry with.

But my argument does not rely on believing the women or JA. My argument is, there is not even remotely enough evidence to get a conviction.

.... Even if Assange is acquitted, that doesn't mean the courts or prosecution overstepped.

Pursuing a case based on evidence that clearly isn't sufficient amounts to harassment.

.... Your evidence that it's all politically motivated seems to come from the same evidence that I use for speculating on additional 'evidence'.

Again, you are addressing an argument which is not the one I am making.

It is my opinion that there is evidence Ny is applying a different standard to JA than she would have in any other case with the same evidence.

My argument is, there is not even remotely enough evidence to get a conviction.

...I don't doubt that if Assange weren't famous he would not have been pursued as much, but accused rapists not being pursued is a bad thing.

Which is interesting since no one in this thread has made any such claim. Saying we believe "accused rapists [don't need to be] pursued" is a straw man that you and others keep accusing everyone of who hasn't come to the same conclusion you have. It's argument by ad hom, and it's as much a fail as argument from authority.

That's how the law works you know! But it isn't a fallacy. I'm not saying that the courts must be right in everything about this case but in assessing extradition and continued investigation.

One need not always believe in said authority to fallaciously use an argument from authority. The basis for your argument here, like the basis for HTL's argument, is the courts are right because there was a legal consensus. There was a legal consensus in the OJ trial. Clearly legal rulings are fallible.

The basis of the UK ruling did not include addressing the common sense of pursuing this case, only the technicalities of the extradition treaty.

They are more likely to be right however. (For those who don't know the limitations of the fallacy and are interested.)

I like this paragraph from your Wiki link:

Bias and prejudice is a human weakness found in experts as well as ordinary people. Wishful thinking is just one possibility when authorities who invested a great deal (time or money) in developing their expertise naturally want to be correct. Evidence that experts are biased weakens their arguments or rebuts the arguments altogether depending on circumstances. We cannot always be certain whether biased experts have weighed up and evaluated arguments carefully or are speaking from prejudice. Experts can be biased for any number of reasons, including who is paying them.[7] Doctors employed by the tobacco industry are not necessarily reliable, for example.[8][9]

No, not just, and I didn't say you said 'just'. But it is an objection you raised, and it is a bad argument. It's a standard argument leveled at rape accusers.

"Soon enough" was not the key to my objection. "Not until learning about each other" was the key point. By their own words, the women didn't appear to object to the sex, they objected to finding out JA was doing more than one woman in the same time frame.

Which is another objection you raised and hypothesized about, but one easily explained by other hypothesis. This is another bad reason to dismiss their reports.

We are in the area of opinion and it is my opinion the evidence supports the hypothesis, they became angry with JA after the fact, not during the sex.



The rest of your post just rehashes the same stuff. How many ways can you say, you couldn't possibly know and how many ways can I say, I think there is enough to safely base a conclusion on?

 

[BenBurch]

Trying a rape case with the collected wisdom of the blogosphere is such a respectful way to deal with the victims!

Magic 8 ball next?

 

[Stacko]

Trying a rape case with the collected wisdom of the blogosphere is such a respectful way to deal with the victims!

Magic 8 ball next?

Signs point to yes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Believing there is never enough evidence in the public sphere to draw a conclusion because sometimes there is not enough evidence?

Magic 8 Ball says: "Try Again"

 

[BenBurch]

If you think that is enough to dismiss rape allegations, I am sad for you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you think that is enough to dismiss rape allegations, I am sad for you.

If you think the testimony of 2 women, whose testimony can be ripped to shreds legitimately (they might have sought money, they colluded, they asked for an HIV test and that evolved into different charges only later) by the defense, is enough to convict a person, I am sad for you.

 

[tyr_13]

These things have been gone over and over in the thread. At some point there is no more to be gained. The evidence is in the netosphere, all of it, and then some.

The argument 'it's not all out there' goes back to that secret evidence, and you cannot even hypothesize what that unknown evidence could be short of an unlikely confession.

How many ways can you say, you couldn't possibly know and how many ways can I say, I think there is enough to safely base a conclusion on?

No, just completely no. It's not 'all out there'. In this 'he said, they said', you don't even know what he said that might have incriminated him. Even the stuff that is out there gets interpreted different ways that don't necessarily support your conclusion.

I've repeatedly given examples of what sort of 'evidence' could be there, including alternate interpretations of evidence in the public sphere, wording examination of his and their statements, etc. You can stop saying that I haven't as I did in my very first statement speculating on additional 'evidence'.

Argument from authority continues, ignoring the fact the court system is susceptible to political and ideological influence.

Explain how extradition hearings are different and use a different standards of and determine different things from criminal trials is an appeal to authority? Maybe if you say it enough it'll become true?

My opinion leans toward the women exaggerating and revising their stories to fit the legal requirement needed to pursue JA who they were angry with.

But my argument does not rely on believing the women or JA. My argument is, there is not even remotely enough evidence to get a conviction.

Irrelevant. The standard for extradition is not to prove that there is enough evidence to get a conviction but enough reason to continue the investigation, that authority isn't being abused. You use one argument to support a conclusion to a different question.

Your opinion by the way isn't supported by the evidence.

Pursuing a case based on evidence that clearly isn't sufficient amounts to harassment.

They don't feel the evidence is insufficient, so I doubt that anyone is going to be charged with harassment. Again, if they feel they have the evidence and that Assange may be guilty, then it's their duty to pursue charges.

Again, you are addressing an argument which is not the one I am making.

It is my opinion that there is evidence Ny is applying a different standard to JA than she would have in any other case with the same evidence.

Oh, so you don't don't think the prosecution is politically motivated, even though you've argued that Ny is politically motivated earlier in the thread, you just think that Ny is applying a different standard, because, well, yeah. And Ny is wrong to go after an accused rapist because...other accused rapists have gotten off too easy?

Reminds me of one Stewart Griffon when he said, "I don't want her dead. I just don't want her...to be...alive...anymore."

My argument is, there is not even remotely enough evidence to get a conviction.

See above. You have many arguments, although that is the main one.

Which is interesting since no one in this thread has made any such claim. Saying we believe "accused rapists [don't need to be] pursued" is a straw man that you and others keep accusing everyone of who hasn't come to the same conclusion you have. It's argument by ad hom, and it's as much a fail as argument from authority.

How is that remotely an ad hom? Are you just throwing out fallacy names and hoping one sticks? But funny you should say that when you also said,

It is my opinion that there is evidence Ny is applying a different standard to JA than she would have in any other case with the same evidence.

So is this a good thing or a bad thing? You've indicated it's a bad thing. This means accused rapists normal level of pursuit is acceptable, which of course is what I said is a bad thing to think yet didn't actually accuse you of. However, "It's not that I want her dead..."

One need not always believe in said authority to fallaciously use an argument from authority. The basis for your argument here, like the basis for HTL's argument, is the courts are right because there was a legal consensus. There was a legal consensus in the OJ trial. Clearly legal rulings are fallible.

The basis of the UK ruling did not include addressing the common sense of pursuing this case, only the technicalities of the extradition treaty.

Again a criminal trial is different, very different, from a criminal trial. That you keep conflating them, intentionally or not, doesn't speak well to your ability of legal analysis. The UK ruling was of course on the technicalities of the extradition treaty, what did you think it should be about?

They found enough to proceed. You say they shouldn't have and were wrong. But in their finding enough to proceed, they did proceed meaning that they in fact, did have enough. They set the standard. That isn't an appeal to authority, that's how these hearings work in the first place.

I like this paragraph from your Wiki link:

I like these parts.

Although certain classes of argument from authority do on occasion constitute strong inductive arguments, arguments from authority are commonly used in a fallacious manner...
The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]

The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.

These conditions may also simply be incorporated into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:[2]

X holds that A is true
X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
The consensus of experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.

But I like that you hold that the part you like is about biased experts. So Ny is biased, as are two courts in Sweden, as is the court in Britain, for some reason. Your evidence of this?

"Soon enough" was not the key to my objection. "Not until learning about each other" was the key point. By their own words, the women didn't appear to object to the sex, they objected to finding out JA was doing more than one woman in the same time frame.

Well that's not true either. The women did object to the sex. The accusation that they are just jealous or after money (that is what you're saying) isn't unique to this case. It's basically the same argument made in every rape case against the accusers. These are not unique facts to this case. Do you hold the same about the Sanduski accusers? Why or why not?

We are in the area of opinion and it is my opinion the evidence supports the hypothesis, they became angry with JA after the fact, not during the sex.

And you know this how? What is the source of that information? You would have to be psychic to know that. What, didn't they act like rape victims should? How should rape victims act? Hey, I've had this conversation before, I believe with Men's Rights Advocates defending accused rapists.

The rest of your post just rehashes the same stuff. How many ways can you say, you couldn't possibly know and how many ways can I say, I think there is enough to safely base a conclusion on?

I think you're wrong. A trial would sort out if there is more evidence, but wouldn't validate your assertions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, just completely no.

Been addressed. I agree to disagree.

I've repeatedly given examples of what sort of 'evidence' could be there, including alternate interpretations of evidence in the public sphere, wording examination of his and their statements, etc. You can stop saying that I haven't as I did in my very first statement speculating on additional 'evidence'.

I asked you for specific hypothetical examples of something that could be gained from another interview with JA short of a confession. If I missed a post please link to it.

Explain how extradition hearings are different and use a different standards of and determine different things from criminal trials is an appeal to authority? Maybe if you say it enough it'll become true?

My repeating the issue is not going to result in you understanding the fallacy you are arguing from.

Irrelevant. The standard for extradition is not to prove that there is enough evidence to get a conviction but enough reason to continue the investigation, that authority isn't being abused. You use one argument to support a conclusion to a different question.

I'm pretty sure prosecutors are supposed to determine if there is enough evidence to charge a person. If not the courts would be clogged with useless cases where there was no hope for successful prosecutions.

Oh, so you don't don't think the prosecution is politically motivated, even though you've argued that Ny is politically motivated earlier in the thread, you just think that Ny is applying a different standard, because, well, yeah. And Ny is wrong to go after an accused rapist because...other accused rapists have gotten off too easy?

To repeat:

It is my opinion that there is evidence Ny is applying a different standard to JA than she would have in any other case with the same evidence.

But my argument is, there is not even remotely enough evidence to get a conviction.

What is it here that you are missing?

How is that remotely an ad hom?

Claiming that because I don't see this case the way you see this case does not mean I believe accused rapists don't need to be pursued. It is a lie intended to insult, aka an ad hom.

[snipped nonsensical stuff like:] a criminal trial is different, very different, from a criminal trial. That you keep conflating them,

They found enough to proceed. You say they shouldn't have and were wrong. But in their finding enough to proceed, they did proceed meaning that they in fact, did have enough. They set the standard. That isn't an appeal to authority, that's how these hearings work in the first place.

The UK court did not rule on the evidence against JA, they ruled on the extradition. They did not rule JA should be tried, they ruled Ny has a right to require him to return to Sweden. That doesn't make Ny right to request the extradition.


[Snipped your denial of argument from authority] It's been addressed.

... Do you hold the same about the Sanduski accusers? Why or why not?

More ad homs.

...I think you're wrong. A trial would sort out if there is more evidence, but wouldn't validate your assertions.

'Magical evidence that isn't in the public sphere' argument again. It is so unlikely as to be silly to claim this is a legitimate argument.

 

[tyr_13]

Been addressed. I agree to disagree.

This isn't a disagreement of opinion. You said it's all out there. Where is the transcript of the interviews then?

I asked you for specific hypothetical examples of something that could be gained from another interview with JA short of a confession. If I missed a post please link to it.

That's not what you asked. You said, "you cannot even hypothesize what that unknown evidence could be short of an unlikely confession." I've given several examples. You want to move the goalposts to something more specific? You're just doing so to elicit more minutia to attack, but fine. Perhaps in his interview, Assange admitted that the sex was on the condition of protection being used, or that he held down the woman with his weight, or made statements that support these accusations by mentioning details that none of us have access too. Perhaps he said something that contradicted something else he said, some other detail. It could be something as minor as the color of the condom packaging if other details of the interviews and reports hinged on it. Cases are made all the time on these details. You'll roll your eyes and attack how 'out there' the speculation is, but it's far from a confession.

My repeating the issue is not going to result in you understanding the fallacy you are arguing from.

I'm not arguing from a fallacy, and you've not shown I am. You've asserted it and tried to straw man it into one, but nothing more. Extradition hearings are not criminal trials.

I'm pretty sure prosecutors are supposed to determine if there is enough evidence to charge a person. If not the courts would be clogged with useless cases where there was no hope for successful prosecutions.

How does that help support anything you've said or refute what I've said?

To repeat:

It is my opinion that there is evidence Ny is applying a different standard to JA than she would have in any other case with the same evidence.

But my argument is, there is not even remotely enough evidence to get a conviction.

What is it here that you are missing?

How that refutes anything I've said in criticism or supports what you've said. "I don't want her dead. I just don't want her to be alive anymore."

Claiming that because I don't see this case the way you see this case does not mean I believe accused rapists don't need to be pursued. It is a lie intended to insult, aka an ad hom.

No, criticism Ny for pursuing an accused rapist because other rapists aren't pursued means you don't think rapists should be pursued as much. 'Other accused rapists aren't pursued as much, so Ny is wrong in pursuing him this much,' is what I object to and what you've implied while making no effort to clarify where my reasoning is, 'Other accused rapists aren't pursued this much, but they probably should be pursued more'

You take a lot of offense at your own reasoning. Perhaps you should examine it and clarify if that's not what you mean, rather than simply assert that those aren't linked.

Extradition hearings are different from criminal trials. You keep citing criminal trials as if they were the same. They are not.

The UK court did not rule on the evidence against JA, they ruled on the extradition. They did not rule JA should be tried, they ruled Ny has a right to require him to return to Sweden. That doesn't make Ny right to request the extradition.

They certainly disagree. I disagree. I didn't say they ruled on the evidence other than to reason that if there were an obvious abuse of the treaty they would have had good reason not to rule as they did. Why do you conflate all these things?

[Snipped your denial of argument from authority] It's been addressed.


More ad homs.

Wrong and wrong. So do you hold the same about other rape accusers? Why dodge the question? What about this case makes these standard victim attacks valid?

You are misusing appeal to false authority, mischaracterizing legal proceedings, and generally jumbling issues up to try to avoid criticism about them.

'Magical evidence that isn't in the public sphere' argument again. It is so unlikely as to be silly to claim this is a legitimate argument.

Insult as argument. You're not interested in truth, but just scoring points in debate. Continue with your boilplate rape defenses, it no longer matters to me. For those interested in what ad hom and appeal to authority actually entail, there are plenty of resources here on JREF to find out.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your reality differs from mine, tyr.

 

[BenBurch]

I am starting to think that Ecuador plans to take literally forever making a decision about Assange.

He may spend the rest of his life in the Embassy unless there is a change of government in Ecuador.