I don’t really know, though, how this is supposed to change my opinion of Wikileaks in any way. What they do is valuable, no matter what Assange did or did not do.
as far as changing opinion, it's just so that reporters would report on wikileaks as "a whistle blower website whose founder is on the run from the law after being accused of rape" and to report on the guy as "founder of Wikileaks and accused rapist"
Just take a moment and think about what would be necessary to frame someone. That doesn’t seem like a simple task to me. We are talking about Swedish police and prosecutors here, police and prosecutors who know that they would be in the spotlight and under intense scrutiny the moment they decided to prosecute Assange. Sweden is not exactly known for its corrupt police and prosecutors, taking that route seems like a stretch.
How do you get two completely normal women (and not any random women, women which have some, however torturous, connection to Assange) to lie to the police? They, too, must know that they would be under intense scrutiny the moment they talked to the police. Lying to the police is no joke, it’s a crime. It’s also a risk for the briber. Who’s to say that one of those women doesn’t break under the intense scrutiny and reveal the conspiracy? If there ever is a trial it will be public and intense stress for the two women. They will also be evaluated, probably several times, by a psychologist. Those two women are not professionally trained super agents.
It's not proof, but there is a strong motive, so it's worth keeping the mind open to the possibility just in case.
For us, there's no evidence for anything. All we know is that someone powerful governments don't like has been accused of some very suspicious sounding charges right before releasing some kind of potentially sensitive document.
>Just take a moment and think about what would be necessary to frame someone. That doesn’t seem like a simple task to me.
It's very simple in the case of things like rape. You just get someone to make a claim and sit back and wait. Did you read the article? The women simply asked advice of the police and the police filed charges without any evidence from them. This is how rape is handled in Sweden (among other places) since women are often afraid to come forward. There is nothing to go on but the word of two anonymous women.
>They, too, must know that they would be under intense scrutiny the moment they talked to the police.
So far it appears that they've only talked over the phone (that's all it takes). As far as I understand they haven't even given a statement or any evidence.
> Lying to the police is no joke, it’s a crime.
If you can prove it. How are you going to prove they're lying? Even if you could prove they didn't have sex that wouldn't prove they didn't believe what they told the police. You would have to prove they were never alone with him.
> It’s also a risk for the briber.
If they even know who the briber was.