Doesn't that work both ways? Maybe you could make a suggestion that the Slashdot editors post a notice about what views will be considered acceptable for any particular discussion. They should also post what the music will be since that will be choir practice, not a discussion. How often do you learn things from a choir? There are many people that share my views, just not many that post on Slashdot for its international audience.

First, that post wasn't a response to me. Second, posting bad arguments and opinions contrary to the facts "hundreds of times" doesn't make them good arguments or factual. I can be persuaded, but you have to be right to do it. Maybe you've heard that two wrongs don't make a right? Well neither does ten thousand wrongs make a right.

Those records are considered ordinary business records. That question has been to the Supreme Court before. The government doesn't legally need a warrant to get them.

That's not building a case. Care to do that?

He hasn't been questioned by the current prosecutor. The trial, if any, would follow charges, and those would follow questioning by the current prosecutor. Not complicated.

Why bring him back to Sweden? You don't suppose it could be due to the likelihood of going forward with a trial, do you? That's hard to do if Assange isn't there. I also seem to recall someone posting that a clock starts ticking once he is actually charged - speedy trial and all that - and Assagne could run out the clock by staying in the embassy.

Sorry, but no. Those claims are often made against specific people, so where is that presumption of innocence?

Ecuador is playing games. They know how the Swedish legal system works and are exploiting people's ignorance of the order in which the steps occur. First comes the interview, then the charges. They know that. Like I wrote, Ecuador is playing games if they actually stated that.

For some reason that presumption rarely seems to be honored for the people that Assange steals or traffics in secrets from. Same goes for Snowden.

He is wanted on a warrant and jumped bail, fleeing police custody. As I wrote, he is a fugitive from justice.

If they plan to charge and try him after the interview then he needs to be in Sweden, not in the embassy in the UK. Funny? Not so much.

If they plan to change and try him after the formal interview it doesn't help if he is in the embassy in the UK instead of Sweden. In fact leaving him in the embassy in the UK thwarts justice.

The investigation was continued by another prosecutor at the insistence of the women. The charges are the same.

Law of large numbers. You abuse or rape enough women and eventually there is likely to be consequences even if not perfect justice.

Before you go down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole perhaps you could explain why the US would wait to extradict him from Sweden in the indefinite fututre instead of extradicting him from friendly US ally Britain now? You believe nonsense.

Questioning the accused is the next step in the Swedish legal process before charges can be filed. A trial would follow that.