Because there are already various conspiracies being discussed in this thread, I'd like to invite you to entertain, just momentarily, the possibility that this is simply a functioning system of justice seeking to prosecute what they consider credible evidence of a crime.

I know the tech community likes Assange, or at least liked Wikileaks as it was originally conceived. But here are some thoughts that you could maybe run through a bayesian analysis to consider if there is enough of a probability that his accuser is telling the truth and this case should be adjudicated in a court of law.

- Even people one sympathises with are capable of making mistakes.

- 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?

- There were enough portraits of Assange, by former colleagues and reputable journalists, that he has some tendencies somewhere between "overstaying his welcome" and "complete egomaniac".

- Sweden is generally considered one of the least corrupt countries in the world. To get from whatever high-ranking politician who would have to sign off on a conspiracy with the US all the way down to some local prosecutors would require an unbroken chain of many people suddenly throwing their principles overboard.

- 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.

- The accuser was some lefty student of Spanish literature at a minor Swedish university. Assange's event there was publicised a few weeks prior. 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, why the rape allegation? If Sweden would be willing to extradite him, they could just arrest him at the airport and send him to the US. What is gained by an extra round through the Swedish criminal justice system?

- 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 any thread on this subject.

- 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.