That doesn't even make any sense.
How could the US extradite Assange for a crime committed in Sweden ?
And why would they extradite for election interference when Barr would just shut it down ?
How could the US extradite Assange for a crime committed in Sweden ?
And why would they extradite for election interference when Barr would just shut it down ?
This is why people were skeptical of the Sweden charges. It was commonly believed that the point of those charges (whether they were true or not) was to get Assange to Sweden, at which point Sweden could roll over, do the US's bidding and extradite him to the US.
Which was always ridiculous, as it was based on the idea that Sweden would be more willing to extradite than the UK, a ridiculous notion.
It is a notion that can be very reasonably entertained; especially since there are a very limited number of Swedish lawyers on HN who can interpret the extradition treaty. Sweden could easily fold like an origami under US pressure regardless of the law too.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden
For a lot of stuff the US applies "global jurisdiction" as soon as anything in the US is being touched, which is also the base for the Kim Dotcom / Megaupload extradition case.