> Here is a man dedicated to radical transparency, yet he refuses to appear before a Swedish court to defend himself from rape charges

o-k. fuck off bloomberg. A basic search finds the wider context suggesting that, no, he isn't refusing out of lack of transparency (on his part).

Also, it seems he has not been charged in Sweden.

so..

I only read a bit of that article. Its tone from the get-go made it clear that it was biased.

It's about time that this business was sorted out. Could the Swedes not try him in absentia. Have the allegations of the accusers been tested at all yet?

I'm a little surprised though; I'm not familiar with Bloomberg news outlets (I'm not in the US), but aren't they respected in finance, data/terminals etc?

The amount of anti-Assange and anti-Snowden propaganda has been notable the last days.

What's the point of bringing this rag here? I don't see anything new in the article and there is not even a pretense of unbiased opinion there. It's like reading Pravda

My favorite passages from the article:

Sometimes the spies get it wrong, like the “slam-dunk” conclusion that Saddam Hussein was concealing Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Even if you aren’t persuaded that Russia was behind it, there is a preponderance of public evidence that the e-mail account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta was hacked, such as the e-mail that asked him to give his password in a phishing scam.

and the actual last "sentence" of the article:

Sad!

it's hard to maintain relevance as a figure of import when you're shut in some embassy. his outlandish claims are a requirement of his position (attention).

Wasn't he recently implicated in the election leaks? Seems his import has not suffered that much.

But in any case, there is a difference between "outlandish" and "extraordinary". Are you saying he is just some attention seeker? That he isn't being hounded by the authorities?