- By everything I've read of his behaviour, even before he became famous, the accusations seemed to be very much his style

- The specifics, i. e. secretly removing the condom, seem to invite all sorts of "that's not rape" opinions, making them a rather bad choice compared to stereotypical violent rape.

- The supposed CIA connection of the accuser is a laughable 10-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon connection involving her attending a two-day seminar by a Cuban feminist organisation whose leader supposedly was connected to the CIA in the 1970.

- Does anybody believe the CIA has covered secret agents stationed at Swedish feminist literature departments for eight years, just in case some target comes along that needs her couch to crush on?

- Assange was travelling all over Europe and other parts of the world in those times. Why not just wait until he is in a country with the perfect extradition treaty and have him arrested at the airport?

- Indeed: what exact purpose is the rape accusation, which would have come with probably a few months in jail max, in this scheme?

- If you're intent to discredit Assange among his fanbase, which is largely young, male, and online: isn't rape actually the worst possible crime to smear him? Just look at the prevalence of "obviously fake"/"not rape" and various other character assassination in this thread.

- At the time of the supposed rape incident, the most prominent leak was the "Collateral Murder" video. The war cables and Snowden leaks came later. That video was somewhat embarrassing, but in no way important enough to warrant such adventures in diplomatic subterfuge as alleged.

- All subsequent leaks, i. e. Snowden, Diplomatic Cables, were published in partnership with media organisations such as the New York Times, Guardian, or Spiegel. Why invest so much ressources and potential risk into going after Assange, and not those organisations that were arguably more important going forward? The Times may be immune because they are domestic. But the Spiegel or Guardian could certainly suffer an embarrassing loss of, say, all their subscriber data?

- Assange's credibility isn't actually that important. There is nothing Wikileaks published that I consider fake. The Clinton leak was just... underwhelming? There was nothing even remotely illegal in there, and not even much that made her look bad. The Snowden leaks were important. The earlier, lesser-known stuff from Africa etc. was fantastic. The diplomatic cables were already borderline.

- Why would the Obama administration go through the risk and difficulty of organising a breathtaking conspiracy to get at him, yet commute Chelsea Manning's sentence?

- Why would the Trump "I love Wikileaks" administration continue that adventure, instead of exposing it, damaging Obama's reputation, and helping their friend?

- Removing Assange, or even Wikileaks, doesn't actually help: leaks have become a well-known tactic now, and traditional media has actually done a better job than WL to publish them, c. f. Panama Papers.

- Hiding in that embassy for seven years is almost definitely worse than whatever may await him in the US. It's just an extraordinarily stupid move. Especially considering the endgame was always that he would face those charges someday. It's just not the decision-making process of a sound mind.