He told Good Morning America the sex attack allegations made him 'clearly a victim of a smear campaign'.
'This has been a very successful smear campaign,' he said, stressing how Google searches of his name invariable come up with mentions of the rape investigation.
'But I think it's days are numbered, and people are starting to wonder if it's really true - and if it is, where's the evidence? Why has no evidence been provided even to me and my attorneys?'
Asked outright if he had sex with these women against their will, he stated confidently: 'Absolutely not. And that is what I have stated, and what my counsel has stated, from the very beginning.'
He insisted that 'something is very wrong' in Sweden and the U.S. that everything was being 'conducted in secret'.
'The whole damn thing is kept secret' he complained, adding that it appears 'no evidence was needed whatsoever' to bring court cases against him.
... While promising to work faster now that he is back 'directing our ship' he must also fight Sweden's attempt to extradite him on allegations of rape and molestation
Assange insisted again that he was being subjected to a smear campaign and 'what appears to be a secret grand jury investigation against me or our organisation.'
He did not elaborate, but said he had retained an unnamed U.S. law firm to represent him.
Part of me hoped he would simply disappear - and I don't mean he would 'be disappeared,' as some Republican politicians would like to happen. I mean he would simply run off. I'm sure he has the means and the contacts to do this.
On the other hand, that would look like he was running away from something.
Then again, I thought - he has plenty to run from. US politicians have openly called for his assassination, and Fascist Sweden is seeking to capture him for an inquisition. (Did you know that rape trials in Sweden are run sans jury, and that the judge is sole arbiter of both guilt and sentencing? Note how Jessica Valenti gushes over Sweden's legal system, and the pieces should start to fall into place.)
The fact is, he should not have to stand trial in Sweden at all.
The charges were only ever brought up again (after being dismissed as lies within 12 hours of the first report to the police) when Wikileaks began releasing damaging material.
So, if he were suddenly to disappear, it would only indicate a man's will to survive - that he would be running from those who seek to do him harm. He would be running not from justice, but from imminent injustice.
The feminist response has been predictable. As reported at the False Rape Society, one feminist had a blackout over Michael Moore's backing of Julian Assange. They quote her screeching, incomprehensible diatribe:
We believe that accuser-shaming, accuser-harassment, victim-blaming, and the suppression of rape cases all serve one distinct purpose, which is: TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO RAPE US AND GET AWAY WITH IT. To make us scared to report our rapes, even to the people we know. And we will not stand for it any more. We require — not ask, not prefer, absolutely require – progressive media and public figures to stand against rape in every case.
How sweet that a feminist nobody believes she can make demands of all forms of progressive media.
As FRS puts it in the same post,
The same feminists having a conniption over Mr. Moore's remarks are conveniently silent when someone publicly assumes the guilt of a man accused of rape.
An earlier FRS post elaborates on the same theme:
... of course, every feminist is an authority on false rape claims. For example, they often feel perfectly justified popping onto this blog to "educate" us, in a most self-righteous and sarcastic manner, about a subject we follow intensely and they don't. We, of course, are biased and unworthy of belief, simply by virtue of the fact that we have the audacity to speak for a group of citizens normally treated as flotsam.
Well, they are coming out of the woodwork with hand-wringing and solemn pronouncements about the Assange rape claims. One writer said this: "The next phase of the Wikileaks coverage has already begun. The fact that there is no public evidence one way or another about the rape case has led into a tiresome, pedestrian argument over the usual sexual battlegrounds. Soon, commentators will start on the prevalence of false rape accusations, and the feminist slant that is inherent in sexual assault charges. Stay tuned for a discussion on men’s rights, the inevitable backlash that ensues, and the inevitable backlash to the backlash, until Julian Assange sneaks away while we’re all yelling at each other."
Comments by feminist Kate Harding, writing in Salon deserve special mention:
As of today, even Naomi Wolf -- Naomi Effin' Wolf! -- has taken a public swipe at Assange's accusers, using her status as a "longtime feminist" to underscore the absurdity of "the alleged victims ... using feminist-inspired rhetoric and law to assuage what appears to be personal injured feelings."
Wow. Admittedly, I don't have as much experience being a feminist as Wolf has, but when I see a swarm of people with exactly zero direct access to the facts of a rape case loudly insisting that the accusation has no merit, I usually start to wonder about their credibility. And their sources.
Tell us, Ms. Harding, how do you react when you see a swarm of people with exactly zero direct access to the facts about an alleged rape case -- a he said/she said case where the only evidence is her say so -- loudly insisting that the accusation has merit?
How do you react then? Does that bother you? Even a little?
Because that's what we almost always hear. That's how the news media and the feminist blogosphere treats virtually every allegation of rape, even the ones supported by no evidence beyond her say-so in a "he said/she said" dispute; even the many that turn out to be false.
Tell me, girlfriend, do you "usually start to wonder about their credibility" in that case?
Somehow, I doubt it. Somehow I suspect you have precisely zero inclination to pound out an angry, sarcastic Internet piece about the innumerable rushes to judgment that crucify innocent men and boys with false rape allegations.
Can you say "Hofstra"?
Funny, girlfriend, you've written a ton on that horrid Roman Polanski. How did you feel about Hofstra?
Doesn't interest you, does it?