> Can you explain why they didn't try in 2012? Or why she didn't try while he was in UK custody prior to his bail?
I think the prosecutors own justification, which she stated quite plainly is both valid and convincing:
There was very little reason to put effort and resources in conducting an interview with Assange, since he would need to return to Sweden for a fair trial to be conducted.
She was, of course, proven correct when after the interview, Assange continued to refuse to return to Sweden for a number of additional years. Had they conducted an interview after 2 weeks, the outcome would have been the same.
> You see why people question her motivations?
Given Assange's behavior, no, not really. She seems to have made a plainly correct judgement of his actions and resources, and attempted to treat Assange like any other defendant, at least until he turned the situation into an international political incident to try and avoid trial.
> If the trial was conducted fairly, I would take no issue with it.
Note how in the very next sentence you leave the door open to object to any trial on the grounds that it wasn't sufficiently fair. This is my point, Assange's defenders cannot really be placated. There's always some thing to be concerned about, some reason to believe Assange is being treated uniquely unfairly. It's reminiscent of how Trump and his supporters cry out about how unfairly he's treated by the legal system, when in fact both are treated quite normally, Assange just made things worse for himself by turning himself into an international fugitive out of conspiratorial fear.
> There was very little reason to put effort and resources in conducting an interview with Assange, since he would need to return to Sweden for a fair trial to be conducted.
The first excuse she gave was that it wasn't possible. She lied. You're making excuses for a liar who was called out on her lies before she tried to use that other excuse.
As to the second excuse, if that true, they wouldn't have eventually bothered, but they did, nor cited the passage of time before they could secure evidence as a reason for closing the rape investigation once they had finally conducted the interviews, but they did.
They failed to do their job, and they lied about it.
> Note how in the very next sentence you leave the door open to object to any trial on the grounds that it wasn't sufficiently fair.
That would apply to any trial, in any situation, with any accused. But somehow it seems to get people who try to defend the way the Assange case was handled very worked up.
> Assange's defenders cannot really be placated.
Only being prepared to accept a fair trial is not a high standard, and not one I'm willing to dispense with whomever the accused is. That this is even an issue is very telling about the attitudes involved.
> There's always some thing to be concerned about, some reason to believe Assange is being treated uniquely unfairly.
There "always is" because he's been subjected to gross human rights abuses. The attempt at using his character to justify that is nasty. The moment human rights are made conditional, they are not rights. Nobody should be treated this way.
To me, this case is very revealing. Assange isn't likeable to me. He may well have done awful things, whether or not they can be proven. I'm not arguing this because I like or support him. I'm arguing this because he has human rights like anyone else, whether or not he was guilty of rape, and whatever else he might have done or not.
> The first excuse she gave was that it wasn't possible. She lied.
This may be the case, but I can find no evidence of such a statement having been made.
> As to the second excuse, if that true, they wouldn't have eventually bothered, but they did,
The justification was to do the interview so that they could continue to maintain the charges, which seems reasonable. Assange (nor anyone else) should not be rewarded for making themselves a fugitive to avoid a trial.
> But somehow it seems to get people who try to defend the way the Assange case was handled very worked up.
Well yes, mostly because (at least until he was actually put in jail in the UK) he wasn't actually subject to any human rights abuses or injustice. He, in fact, was treated with extreme deference and privilege compared to most people accused of crimes, and yet because of his platform people demand his kid gloves be treated with kid gloves.
You cannot claim that someone's self-imposed exile is a human rights abuse. At that time, he was not imprisoned. He could have walked outside and faced justice and, he'd likely have been free sooner and with less detriment to himself.
It is primarily because he had (as we can now see: unjustified) conspiratorial fears about getting disappeared that he suffered so much. And the majority of that was at his own hand, or as a result of him committing additional crimes to avoid facing justice for the alleged ones.
If you actually care about human rights abuses, Assange is a terrible person to platform, both because he is eminently unlikeable and because his suffered "abuses" aren't really. Someone in Riker's likely has it worse, and less ability to improve their situation.
I think the prosecutors own justification, which she stated quite plainly is both valid and convincing:
There was very little reason to put effort and resources in conducting an interview with Assange, since he would need to return to Sweden for a fair trial to be conducted.
She was, of course, proven correct when after the interview, Assange continued to refuse to return to Sweden for a number of additional years. Had they conducted an interview after 2 weeks, the outcome would have been the same.
> You see why people question her motivations?
Given Assange's behavior, no, not really. She seems to have made a plainly correct judgement of his actions and resources, and attempted to treat Assange like any other defendant, at least until he turned the situation into an international political incident to try and avoid trial.
> If the trial was conducted fairly, I would take no issue with it.
Note how in the very next sentence you leave the door open to object to any trial on the grounds that it wasn't sufficiently fair. This is my point, Assange's defenders cannot really be placated. There's always some thing to be concerned about, some reason to believe Assange is being treated uniquely unfairly. It's reminiscent of how Trump and his supporters cry out about how unfairly he's treated by the legal system, when in fact both are treated quite normally, Assange just made things worse for himself by turning himself into an international fugitive out of conspiratorial fear.