:hehe: :hehe:
Printable View
It's been a few years but my recollection is that woman A voluntarily slept with him at a conference and the next day woman B also voluntarily slept with him. About a week later woman A and B were having lunch and discovered that they had both slept with him and they exchanged notes, as such. There was something similar that they both disliked (possibly the condom thing) and they then agreed that he should be charged with rape, a charge that never would have been made in a less 'liberal' society.
A retired detective in Sweden reviewed the case and said it was the weakest he had ever seen and there was virtually no chance of it proceeding to trial. Despite this, the Swedes still insist he come to Sweden for an interview, an interview he agreed to hold in the UK but not in Sweden due to fear of extradition.
I can understand his paranoia, especially as he appears to be a bit of a nutter.
He’s a proper nasty piece of work, by all accounts.
“When the Guardian editors told him they would redact the names of Afghans mentioned in the cables whose lives would be otherwise endangered, Assange said: “Well, they're informants. So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.” https://t.co/9OWzYWFV0H”
looooool. Avenatti too, now.
At least that means everyone gets to see more of Ms. Daniels :-\
https://saraacarter.com/thursday-ind...ulian-assange/
and "Giuliani told the Examiner he thinks Assange might have information that would "show who invented [the] false story that [Trump] colluded with Russians."
Crowdstrike invented it, surely everyone knows that who has their eyes open. With their connections to Ukrainian oligarchs, anti-Russian think tanks and, oh, Hillary Clinton! Only they investigated the DNC server, and curiously not the FBI, or Muellers investigation or anyone else.
Meanwhile, Craig Murray and Julian Assange, the two people who claim to know who actually provided Wikileaks with the data (leaked, not hacked), were never consulted by the FIBs or the investigation.
Naturally, because the last thing M & Co. want is young Julian testifying under oath that his source was in fact "that dead guy", for instance, rather than the Commies. The Feeb's (and Mueller's) conclusions regarding the so-called hack only make sense so long they are never, ever tested in front of any half-decent defence lawyer.
Assange could write a book about it, I suppose, as he's unlikely to ever get his day in court :-\
Right. Now that the witch-hunt is over, they don't really need him anymore. But, if he could finger Hillary, so to speak, that would be a story they might like to reach a wider audience ..
The big question is: What was Mueller really investigating. After all, he would've known 100% that POTUS45-elect was innocent on day one; all the intelligence and evidence would've been waiting for him in his inbox. Curious.