and STILL no evidence produced !

and thank God ( whoever she is) for an independent judiciary.

I predict this whole case is going to fall over in a heap and lots of people will have egg on their faces.

The Yanks may still get Assange though..they usually get what they want.

veritas wrote:
The Yanks may still get Assange though..they usually get what they want.

Yes - I wouldn't smoke any cigars this Christmas if I were him (anyone remember the CIA's "exploding cigar" plan to kill Castro?).

Also travel may not be a good thing either - could get rendered (if you know what I mean ?)

Kirsty Wark's 'interview' with him on Newsnight tonight drove me crazy. She cannot resist talking over the top of people with that grating voice in order to 'prove' she's a tough cookie, and all she achieves is that we don't hear what the bloke says. Once or twice is okay but if you keep doing that it makes the whole interview incoherent. It's much more effective is to let the person speak and then respond with a pertinent question.

In The Know wrote:
veritas wrote:
The Yanks may still get Assange though..they usually get what they want.

Yes - I wouldn't smoke any cigars this Christmas if I were him (anyone remember the CIA's "exploding cigar" plan to kill Castro?).

Also travel may not be a good thing either - could get rendered (if you know what I mean ?)

Wikileaks did not commit a crime, House Judiciary chairman says

The USA has become a very odd place. You don't have to break the law to end up in GITMO forever.

veritas wrote:
The USA has become a very odd place. You don't have to break the law to end up in GITMO forever.

Agreed.

The "Swedish crime-that-is-not-a-crime" (because the authorities haven't invented any evidence yet), is just a "holding measure" to ensure that Saint Julian is held in the UK until the USA authorities invent some evidence to extradite him.

That is happening now.

When the Yankers issue their warrant he will simply be whisked away with not a shred of evidence presented to a UK Court.

Better stock up on the lube, Julian - I have a feeling that you're gonna need it.

What did I say, veritas ?

USA preparing espionage charges -
news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Assang..._He_Is_Freed_On_Bail

Prunella Minge wrote:
Kirsty Wark's 'interview' with him on Newsnight tonight drove me crazy. She cannot resist talking over the top of people with that grating voice in order to 'prove' she's a tough cookie, and all she achieves is that we don't hear what the bloke says. Once or twice is okay but if you keep doing that it makes the whole interview incoherent. It's much more effective is to let the person speak and then respond with a pertinent question.

Agreed.
She kept asking him over and over again why he didn't go back (to Sweden) and "face the charges" - apparently quite ignorant of the fact that there AREN'T any charges to answer !

Why was she not (as an investigative journalist) asking the Swedish authorities what they are up to ?

Thanks ITK, you write:

"Why was she not (as an investigative journalist) asking the Swedish authorities what they are up to ?"

I have nothing to add to that, save to say it's an excellent question, and like all excellent questions, it won't go away for not being answered.

In other news, when pressed for an explanation as to why it could not simply take advantage of the wonderful invention by Alexander Graham Bell enabling people to speak at a distance without even raising their voices, officials for the Swedish government say they would do but they got their phone cut off last month after not paying their bill.

Best Wishes,
Jim

WARNING: May contain traces of irony

Sadly the BBC being constantly under attack from Murdoch's Bitches means the quality of the BBC interviews with "controversial" figures has gone for a burton. Kirsty Wark is clearly a typical pseudo-intellectual scrub who is part of the conspiracy against the truth. Perhaps it's a shame she didn't upset some Serbian warlords too.

In The Know wrote:
Prunella Minge wrote:
Kirsty Wark's 'interview' with him on Newsnight tonight drove me crazy. She cannot resist talking over the top of people with that grating voice in order to 'prove' she's a tough cookie, and all she achieves is that we don't hear what the bloke says. Once or twice is okay but if you keep doing that it makes the whole interview incoherent. It's much more effective is to let the person speak and then respond with a pertinent question.

Agreed.
She kept asking him over and over again why he didn't go back (to Sweden) and "face the charges" - apparently quite ignorant of the fact that there AREN'T any charges to answer !

Why was she not (as an investigative journalist) asking the Swedish authorities what they are up to ?

Kristy Squawk is so ignorant she seems oblivious to the fact Assange was in Sweden for a month after the claims were made and repeatedly made himself available via his lawyers for questioning.

and why the fuck should he go back ?