Are Liberals Too Eager to Believe Sex Charges Against Julian Assange?

[sabrina 1]

95. And you already know that this excuse has been debunked over and over again. Even they

are no longer using it. So my next question is, why do you ignore the information people have presented to you about the facts of this case?

So once again, and I hope this time it will sink in and you won't be wasting time repeating that inaccurate information.

The prosecutor first refused to interview Assange while he was in Sweden then told him he was free to leave.

She knew where he was. He remained in touch through his attorneys with her, and always available for an interview.

For two years now she has, for some inexplicable reason, refused to travel the two hours it would have taken to conduct that interview.

Most importantly, it has been well established by now, that there is nothing in Swedish law that ever prevented her from doing this after which she would have been free to file her case.

I don't know why you keep repeating this. Legal Law Professors, even the women's own attorney, International legal experts, all have made this very clear.

Sweden has done this before, for a murderer no less. But then they really wanted to file charges in that case.

So again, with those errors cleared up, what reason would a Prosecutor have for using every excuse she could not to do so, allow someone she claims, committed a crime, to 'roam free' when all it would have taken was a two hour trip to speak to him as has been done in the past??

Seriously I you drop this argument from now on, it has zero validity which you have been informed of over and over again.