Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday November 15 2016, @12:23AM   Printer-friendly
from the times-they-are-a'changing dept.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is finally being questioned by prosecutors more than six years after he was first accused of rape in Sweden.

Ingrid Isgren, Sweden's deputy chief prosecutor, arrived at the Ecuadorian Embassy this morning, according to The Guardian, ending a stalemate which began in 2012 when the South American nation offered Assange political asylum on the grounds that he faced political persecution from the United States.

Assange claims that the rape accusations, which he denies, are part of a plot to extradite him to the United States that would swing into action were he to answer prosecutors' questions in the Scandinavian country.

The interview suggests some forward movement is being made in the diplomatic deadlock between Ecuador and Sweden regarding the arrangements for Swedish prosecutors to talk to Assange in the embassy.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:28AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:28AM (#426821)

    > You're talking about Mrs. Hillary "Can't we just drone this guy" Clinton?

    Nope, I'm not. Because that was just another fake news story.
    Why are you believing that shit when it would take just 30 seconds to debunk? [snopes.com]

    I get it, its easy to doubt things you disagree with. It takes real discipline to doubt the people telling you the things you want to hear.
    But after being wrong so many times, you'd think you'd get tired of it.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Informative=4, Underrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:41AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:41AM (#426845) Journal

    Snopes says "unproven". It hasn't yet been "proven" to everyone's satisfaction that man has walked on the moon. You go ahead and hang with the people who need incontrivertible proof with their own eyes. Meanwhile, those of us with more sense will just accept that Hillary is a killer.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:45AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:45AM (#426847)

      > Meanwhile, those of us with more sense will just accept that Hillary is a killer.

      Strangers waitin'
      Up and down the boulevard
      Their shadows searchin' in the night
      Streetlights, people
      Livin' just to find emotion
      Hidin' somewhere in the night

      Don't Stop Believin'
      Hold on to the feelin'
      Streetlight, people
      Ohh-Ohhh-Ohhhhhhhh

      Don't Stop Believin'
      Hold on to the feelin'
      Streetlight, people
      Ohh-Ohhh-Ohhhhhhhh

      Don't stop believin'
      Hold on
      Streetlight, people
      Ohh-Ohhh-Ohhhhhhhh

      Don't stop believin'

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:25PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:25PM (#426960)

      So in your hierarchy of trust a random blogger with a history of made-up stories telling an uncorroborated story - despite claiming there were witnesses - without naming a single source is good enough because why?

      Are you so completely adrift that anyone who tells you what you want to hear is a somebody you will believe? Aren't you one to say that women who claim to be raped shouldn't automatically be believed because she might just be using it to hurt a man she has a grudge against? What's the difference here?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @06:11PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @06:11PM (#427078)

      Its called "presumption of innocence", the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, rather than your idea that everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 15 2016, @11:13PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 15 2016, @11:13PM (#427259) Journal

        In the court of public opinion, it's whatever the fuck WE THE PEOPL say.

        I am not a judge, nor a lawyer, nor even a jurist. I am a voter, a taxpayer, and an old bastard who has had 60 years to get acquainted with human nature.

        There is no presumption of innocence, you silly AC.

    • (Score: 1) by charon on Tuesday November 15 2016, @10:40PM

      by charon (5660) on Tuesday November 15 2016, @10:40PM (#427247) Journal
      I have one question for you and the other hysterical people who think the Clintons have murdered people who endanger their livelihood/political career/graft opportunities: how come James Comey is still breathing?
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 15 2016, @11:15PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 15 2016, @11:15PM (#427260) Journal

        Comey completed his mission. DESPITE proof that Clinton had done wrong, and lied about it, he recommended that the government not seek charges. He did what he was paid to do. He MAY NOT remain breathing for very much longer, but he did complete his mission.

        • (Score: 1) by charon on Tuesday November 15 2016, @11:50PM

          by charon (5660) on Tuesday November 15 2016, @11:50PM (#427280) Journal
          But then he brought up some new emails 11 days before the election, quite possibly costing her the presidency. That's the part where a hypothetical murderous politician would consider herself "double-crossed."