Julian Assange’s Arrest Warrant is actually Upheld by U.K. Judge

In 2016, which published emails, hacked by Russian intelligence, which were damaging to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, has said which WikiLeaks acts “like a hostile intelligence service.”

Photo

Jennifer Robinson, center, a lawyer representing Julian Assange, speaking to reporters outside Westminster Magistrates Court in London This specific month.

Credit
John Stillwell/Press Association, via Associated Press

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said last year which arresting Mr. Assange was a priority for the Justice Department. yet no charges against him have been made public, as well as which is actually not clear whether the department has prepared an indictment yet kept which under seal.

Ecuador recently granted citizenship to Mr. Assange, 46, a native of Australia, yet Britain rejected an Ecuadorean request to give him diplomatic immunity to ensure which he could leave the embassy without fear of arrest.

Mr. Assange’s legal hurdles began in 2011, when Sweden requested which he be extradited there to face accusations which he had sexually assaulted two women. He said which the charges were politically motivated, which he would certainly not get a fair trial there, as well as which Sweden might turn him over to the United States.

After the British courts rejected his bid to quash the extradition request, Ecuador granted him asylum as well as he took refuge from the embassy. In doing so, he jumped bail, which resulted from the British arrest warrant.

This specific week, news organizations reported which years ago, Swedish prosecutors considered giving up the sexual assault case, yet their British counterparts urged them not to.

Last year, Swedish authorities did drop their investigation of Mr. Assange, along with the request to extradite him, as well as the arrest warrant is actually the only remaining legal issue which is actually publicly known.

His lawyers argued which the warrant, as well as his resulting self-imposed isolation, were not from the public interest. yet Judge Arbuthnot disagreed, saying which his “failure to surrender has impeded the court of justice.”

Continue reading the main story