Do you have a reference regarding "child rape"?

I looked over some of the information but it is a weird case based on what I found...two (they don't mention age but I got the distinct impression these were past the age of consent) women had somewhat consensual sex with Assange. The were seeking him to have him tested for STDs and sought police help in locating him. The Swedist police gave their statements to a prosecutor who determined based on what they related that his sex with them constituted rape.
[theguardian.com]

@cava the case in question was sex with a minor....he would not have to "hide out" in an embassy if all that was needed was a blood test.
He hid out so long that the victim as well as everybody else involved has moved on......

@AnneWimsey "sex with a minor" where is this stated?

@powder I never heard it was "confidential", that remark was posted by this poster. I knew about it in 2016, or maybe late 2015, from regular TV news outlets.

But isn't this what muckrakers do? Glenn Greenwald wrote an interesting article in The Intercept today*:

"The same is true of WikiLeaks’ publication of the DNC and Podesta emails. Nobody has ever presented evidence of any kind that WikiLeaks worked on the hacking of those emails. There is no evidence that WikiLeaks ever did anything other than passively receive pilfered documents from a source and then publish them – exactly as the New York Times did when it received the stolen Pentagon Papers, and exactly as the Guardian and the Washington Post did when it received the Snowden documents."

Which is why Obama didn't go in that direction, and which is exactly why Trump is going in that direction. Anything Trump can do to hinder freedom of the press.

• [theintercept.com]

Of course Glenn Greenwald may be bias, but he's convincing.

@cava My main malfunction with WikiLeaks is that they started out doing proper redactions and then said in effect, fuck it, we're just throwing it out to the world. It is one thing to expose secrets, another to wreck people's cover in ways that could get them killed or jeopardize legitimate national security concerns. The Intercept and the Guardian have worked together with stakeholders to release their materials in a responsible manner compared to WikiLeaks. AFAIK most of the government catastrophism over Snowden's leaks is impotent bluster and sour grapes, but WikiLeaks seems to be giving the government various excuses and opportunities to make an example of Assange, and sadly, Assange is enough of an asshat that he's worn our his welcome with the Ecuadorians and probably most of the American public. It's probably only a matter of time before he's perp-walked into a US court.

The irony in all this is that Assange will probably be "brought to justice" with the full cooperation of the US press, and in so doing they'll lay the groundwork for their own demise down the road.

Mueller's sealed indictment against Assange is the first thing he's done that I'm not sure I like; it's dangerous, inherently, for the future of a free press. Little as I like Assange or his organization or how they've handled themselves, I do not think Assange should be extradited so the US feds can have their way with him. It's a terrible precedent. The rationalization is, we won't treat "legitimate" or "substantial" or "mainstream" journalism the same, but there's no inherent reason why Assange is a special case just because he's a one man shitshow vs an established network or newspaper.

By the logic of what's going down here, the Pentagon Papers would never have been published and Nixon might have finished his second term.