Hacker News Reader

Comment by baby | Hacker News Reader

So. Mind you I haven't really followed what Assange did or didn't do. But it seems like a lot of people are angry at him because they think he is responsible for having Trump becoming president. Before that, the same people seemed pretty supportive of him.

View on HN

Don't be ridiculous, HN is a bastion of rationality. Comparing breaking government computers to reveal war crimes with burglarizing your personal home convinces you to take the matter personally. This is how rational dispassionate people argue.

From a UK perspective Assange started to fall out of favour before whatever happened in the 2016 USA elections. Avoiding rape charges and skipping out on bail (which people had put money towards in good faith) will do that.

"rape charges"

These never existed, and were the most obvious part of his character assassination.

Unless you have a link to a Swedish government domain which has published such things?

It was one of the charges listed on the European arrest warrant.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

> 4. Rape

> On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.

Whatever you think of Assange's guilt or innocence, it is a fact that he was charged with rape.

It seems you didn't read or comprehend the document you linked? What you just referred to as "one of the charges" is literally not a list of charges, it's a list of "offences" which is not the same. Glossing over these definitions is absurd, and half of this document is literally discussing/determining what these differences are and whether the legal frameworks can be upheld across borders or not.

The entire purpose of that court's review was to determine if the European arrest warrant could be considered valid in the UK.

It explains very clearly and in great detail that he has not been "charged" because that's not how the Swedish judicial system works.

His perceived support of Trump definitely eroded his fragile asylum with the Ecuadorians. They released multiple statements that made it obvious they were getting fed up with him at the time.

Personally, I think his support of Trump was a transparent attempt to receive some kind of quid pro quo when the inevitable prosecution happened. Obama has already set the precedent by commuting Chelsea Manning's sentence. It wouldn't be that unexpected for Trump to do the same for Assange.

I could understand your reasoning if Trump loved Wikileaks but he does not know what Wikileaks is.

He knows enough about it to be enthusiastic about it, at least back when it helped him get elected.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n7VyHbqkas

Good lord. He said he "didn't know about WikiLeaks" when asked about the recent Julian Assange arrest. He was obviously s to stating he wasn't up-to-date on the recent developments. He had said something similar to that in a previous interview. Stop watching trash media.

I mean it came out that he/wikileaks were communicating and coordinating with the Trump campaign and Assange requested that Trump ask the Aus govt to appoint him as Aussie ambassador to the US as payment for helping him win.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...

So many that supported him earlier don't support him anymore because he was delaying and timing leaks and selectively leaking things to help get Trump elected. I personally felt he lost the moral high ground after that.

What does moral high ground have to do with being charged and extradited?

The charges in question are still regarding those earlier leaks, though. One can reasonably argue whether they were morally right or not, or even that it's too complicated to simplify like that - but it has to be argued in that original context.

>he was delaying and timing leaks and selectively leaking things to help get Trump elected.

Isn't it also possible, that he was selectively leaking things to ensure that someone he knew to be a war criminal would not gain power in the American presidency?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com