Julian only entered Ecuadorean political asylum because he feared onward extradition to the USA, not extradition to Sweden.
None of the above detracts from the many problems with the Swedish prosecution: Sweden’s Chief Prosecutor decided no offence had been committed and the case should be closed after the initial investigation before another Prosecutor decided to reopen the case, as is possible under the Swedish system. That prosecutor, Marianne Ny (pictured), herself decided to close the case in 2013, and was instructed not to by the British Crown Prosecution Service in a series of emails which the CPS attempted to hide and some of which had been destroyed. Ms Ny also admitted to destroying communications from the FBI, and ultimately admitted to having destroyed the entire case file.
That is before you get to the problems with the Swedish judicial system, where rape trials hear all evidence entirely in secret – there is no jury, and two of the three judges are political party appointees.
Plainly, as always in cases involving Assange, there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about the impartiality of state justice. The United Nations has already condemned the disproportionate sentence given to Assange for breaking bail conditions and his being held in a maximum security prison. It has gone virtually unremarked by the MSM that the Ecuadorean government has, entirely illegally, handed all of Julian’s possessions over to the USA.
Plainly this is a long and difficult fight to save Julian from entrapment and permanent imprisonment. But the Swedish calumny not being simply left hanging is a necessary step in that fight.