Ignore Assange's character, focus on leaks of dubious, probably state actor origin, precisely timed in their release. Focus on which state propaganda network hosted his show, whom he met with in the embassy, etc.
If (1) you have acquired documents on both the DNC and the RNC, (2) they are both damaging and (3) you choose to only leak the ones about the DNC... well then it's not as clear cut and ethical as leaking both troves. Even if what you do leak is factually true.
> What's that got to do with the government's reaction and pursuit since, based on what was released?
Nothing - but that moral judgment has a lot to do with some people deciding the cause is not worth supporting after realizing what the cause truly is about.
The Nazis spent a lot of time acquiring factual information about the Katyn massacre, it's worth knowing the motives.
Assange has certainly played with outright lies e.g. Seth Rich.
Most of WikiLeaks output as far as I'm aware is mostly truthful to what was given to them, with the caveat that they are telling a story (e.g. bellingcat have no issues finding dirt on Russians, WikiLeaks don't).
They are also very happy to cause collateral damage of their own, IIRC they're very happy to leak personal details & CC numbers of people associated with those they dislike (iirc it was democratic donors in some US state, the data was leaked unredacted).
I don't like the guy, but I also don't like arguments based on political narratives.
Is the evidence Assange released factual?