If you believe that, why is he still alive? You seem to be defining "everything with it's power - legal or illegal" very narrowly.

Also, the beginning if the sex charges issue predates this recent release by several months. Sure, it could have been in response to the earlier releases (which were, in my view more dangerous if less embarrassing to so many politicians) but then the government is doing a piss poor job of doing "everything in its power" if all it can manufacture is a weak case that won't begin to really embarrass him until after he's already done the damage of this last release.

Now, I'm not saying that the entire situation isn't fabricated. Just that there's no particular evidence that it is beyond fitting into the narrative you've predefined. Assuming to be true that for which there is no evidence but is merely possible is not the same thing as a "giant grain of salt."


As for Holder, I doubt they'd pass any ex post facto legislation (and if they did I doubt it would stand for long) but I've no doubt they could pass legislation that would criminalize ongoing activity to the same effect. We do that all the time and generally there isn't anything particularly controversial about it.

Because he would become a martyr if he were killed. They wasnt to destroy his reputation and his life.

So they set up a rape scenario that looks pretty borderline by most standards, and didn't arrange for any strong evidence? They didn't have the women claim they woke up in the middle of the night find that their house guest had tied them down and had his way with them all night. That he violently coerced them?

They didn't trick him into sleeping with a 14 year old? They didn't arrange for the body of a dead hooker to be discovered in bed with him. They didn't plant child pornography on his computers.

So they're simultaneously really devious and really stupid at their jobs in that they decided to smear him but only do it half-assedly.

Again, doing everything in their power to destroy him seems to be defined very narrowly here.

Without doubting the logic of the sarcastic scenario you just pointed out, Alex, I'd have to assert the entire WikiLeak system itself reveals how simultaneously devious and stupid the U.S. government really is.

Oh, I have no problem with the government being simultaneously devious and stupid. This is more in the realm of the same person being simultaneously devious and stupid.

And that can certainly happen too. I just find it less than satisfying when supposing a conspiracy for which there's little direct evidence requires it in order to make sense.

I am living proof of a person simultaneously devious and stupid. ;)


I agree with all your points of logic, Alex, but it's very difficult to avoid conspiratorial theorizing on a subject where conspiracies are so rife.


However, I think the sexual assault charges are more "trumped up" than conspiratorial, per se - and yet I'm assuming we'll see much more conspiracies to come in the Assange case. Does a conspiracy have to be secret? Because otherwise I find the "plan" to pass new laws specifically to find Assange guilty of them to be quite conspiratorial.

I think what is more likely is that the zeal with which the charges are being pursued is opportunistic (based on what I'd read as of a couple days ago it sounded like this mostly blew up out of a desire to find a way to force Assange into an STD test) than that the charges were manufactured out of whole cloth.

That said, my reading has taught me that that agents of the Swedish government are not above intentionally misdiagnose a child as mentally incompetent and then abusing her in institutions all to protect a secret Russian spy that defected. And if they'll do that, they can do anything.

You're devious?

OMG Alex, my reading leads me to the same conclusions about Sweden! Never going there! Cesspit of pulp.

You don't want to now the horrors my other recent reading on Sweden has taught me.