[marcusverus]

It's a no lose situation. There are two possible outcomes: Russia did it, or someone else did it. The FBI, CIA, and NSA published a report saying that the hack was carried out by Russia to support the Trump campaign, that is the accepted truth on the matter. Worst case scenario for Trump is that this holds up, in which case nothing changes.

In the event that Assange could prove some other actor sourced the emails, that would mean that the FBI, NSA, and CIA were wrong, and the single biggest argument in support of the 'Russia Collision' narrative would go away. Trump would fold this into his narrative that the investigation into Russian collusion was a witch hunt.

[ansible]

> In the event that Assange could prove some other actor sourced the emails, that would mean that the FBI, NSA, and CIA were wrong, ...

Which is just about impossible for him to prove. Does Assange have access to the kind of IT forensics experts, access to the hacked systems and other resources to prove someone else did it? No, he does not. He didn't do the hacking himself. Whoever he did get the leaked info from could of course claim not to be working for the Russians as an intermediary. But that is just a claim, and not proof.

[ModernMech]

Assange doesn't have to prove anything. He just has to say what Trump wants to get the pardon, and Trump will blast that all over Twitter and on every news outlet in the country.

If that sounds like an official act in return for a personal political favor to the president to help his reelection chances and therefore is illegal, you would be correct!