You are feeding a political movement that supports allowing a man, dishonest or not, to be jailed for protecting his sources, which will set a precedent that inhibits ALL genuine journalistic investigation.
Debatable. For one, we already know who his sources are. Chelsea Manning was already convicted, jailed and commuted. Roger Stone was convicted and pardoned. His friends at GRU are under indictment and likely beyond prosecution. Assange himself barely qualifies as a journalist. I mentioned James Risen with the NY Times before. He went to trial for his sources and faced no punishment. Assange isn't being pursued for protecting sources, he's being pursued for actively engaging in hacking. There may not be enough evidence to convict, but the indictment isn't for normal journalism activities. It's for his own activities.
How can you credibly assert he has friends at the GRU?
If it's not malevolent to write that, then I assert the same for you. You have friends at the GRU, and you're distributing toxic disinformation at the behest of foreign intelligence agencies.
I'm kinda surprised at all the moralizing over this like I'm talking conspiracy theories. We have the DM logs between WL and Guccifer 2.0. It's possible though hard to believe that he legitimately didn't know how G2 was, but that only elevates him to patsy for foreign disinformation instead of a willing participant. And the fact that he very boldly lied about it for so long doesn't paint a positive picture.
You repeatedly cite incorrect facts and unproven theories, then expand them into elaborate, slanderous, and entirely unfounded stories.
Here’s a quick example:
> We have DM logs between WL and Guccifer 2.0.
This is simply untrue. You sent a link to messages between Emma Best and WL. The messages indicate that a WL twitter user knew of G2. That is all the information available there. Emma likely gave them out. Everything you extended from that is purely hypothetical.
As such you either don’t know what you’re doing, or you know it and are malicious. Stop.