I am generally wary of mentioning a news development that I don't have any particular connection to, or angle on, or opportunity to offer new reporting about. The exception in this case is because the line of analysis I'll mention, if true, would be significant. It comes from a source whose judgment I've learned to respect over time. But the conspiratorial interpretation he suggests is one I usually resist, and I don't have the resources or time to go independently into the questions he has raised. So as an alert to a possibility that deserves consideration but that I can't prove myself, here goes:
It is worth reading in order the series of posts on the Fabius Maximus site -- from earliest to latest here, here, here, and here -- making the case that the "official" story of the rape accusations against Julian Assange of Wikileaks is too strange and coincidence-ridden to be easily believable. The first post in this series, more than a week ago, starts with a summary of his hypothesis: "The CIA used to overthrow governments. Now they cannot even frame a rape charge against the leader of Wikileaks." Nothing is "proven" as of the latest update today; but individually and collectively, the posts do something most newspaper articles haven't. They put the whole story together and say: this part doesn't match that part, and this other part is extremely improbable, and if we're to believe the official version, then the following ten coincidences must all have gone the same way.
I do not know the truth here and am not in a position to dig into it myself. But if his suggestions prove to be true, they would have wide ramifications, and they are worth being aware of now. (Also, see this summary today by the Atlantic's Heather Horn.) So it becomes a test of which is harder to believe: That there was a conspiracy to frame Julian Assange? Or that there wasn't?