> Britain doesn't enter the equation because he's not on British soil.
He was on British soil for months while his extradition case dragged on. And whatever "covert" ties Sweden has with NATO (which is not the USA), the U.K. has substantially many more with the U.S. directly. The "special relationship" is a real thing, so if some sort of covert rendition were a real worry for Assange, it would have already happened without needing to involve a Scandinavian nation.
> That said, he's just wanted for questioning. Which he's repeatedly said he's happy to do remotely via video conference.
He's wanted for questioning as part of his arrest and formal charge proferring. You can't book people by VTC last I checked; either way, Assange is in no position to unilaterally demand the conditions of his treatment as compared to any other defendant under Swedish law. Does he think he's royalty or something, and above the law as applied to the rest of Sweden?
> If the Swedish prosecutor actually wanted to talk to Assange like they say the do, they could do it today.
See above.
> Also: Aardin immediately invited Assange to a crayfish party after she was allegedly raped. That's really odd behaviour, especially from a well known feminist.
Perhaps. If only there was some deliberative process by which a group of persons might decide where that nugget of evidence stacks up in determining whether Assange is actually guilty or not guilty, we could help clear all this up.