For one, were the actions Assange took to secure the "Collateral Murder" leaks illegal? If so, where is the line that distinguishes his methods from those regularly employed by investigative journalists? And how can he be charged in a way that doesn't threaten the future of investigative journalism and whistleblowing?
The DNC/Podesta leaks have turned Assange into an even more polarizing figure, and it seems that a lot of negative attitudes towards him originate there. Were these leaks more, less, or equally effective as all the Russian disinformation campaigns occurring on social media? If you're one of the people harboring an ill view of Assange for his role here, what is it that upsets you about it? Is it that he released information about Clinton? Or that he didn't release information on Trump? Was it that he released information at all? As far as I know, there was no disinformation in the DNC/Podesta leaks (unlike the Fancy Bear leaks.) So it's fair to say that voters who changed their stance after the leaks did so from a more knowledgeable place. I'm sure noone here is upset at the idea of more informed voters - however, do you believe there is a better way to inform voters of matters like these? What route do you think should have been taken to publish this information?
And with all that said, how much bearing should the DNC leaks have on the ruling of the charges being brought forth for Collateral Murder? Are these matters relevant to one another?
These are all genuine questions - I don't presume any answers. I'd certainly like to learn more from you all, but if past threads are anything to go off of, I'm expecting at least a few inflammatory responses.