way of proving any solid proof for anything. I doubt that the unverified and unverifyable testimony of one single witness is sufficient to claim a "serious offense" justifying invading an embassy. Otherwise China would only have to "find" a witness claiming that Chen Guangchen has raped her -- and invade the US embassy. Does anyone really believe that the western world would grant China the same room for justification? I doubt that. Re DDOS: it's rather inexplicable that all those hits haven't thrown up a lot of comments, if the hits were genuine. And I've never lost the server for minutes on end before. Looks like an anomaly to me, and DDOS is very definitely a possible cause. Re. US involvement: this question is rather crucial to the affair. It's likely, it's "common knowledge" on the interweb (ie universally cut and pasted) but it's rather like Israeli nukes; no-one's admitting to it. Reluctantly agree with your critic here, Craig. If you have something hard, the world needs to know. The Ecuadorian government will announce its decision on Assange's future at 10pm today (AEST). A government official in Ecuador's capital, Quito, said that the British government had made it clear it would not allow Assange to leave the country to travel to Ecuador, so even with a grant of asylum or similar protection, he would probably remain stuck in the embassy. Despite a growing police presence at the building that houses the embassy, and social media speculation, police have not entered