Given that we can plainly see from the chat logs that the allegations in 19-22 are baseless, why is it reasonable to believe that the allegations in 4-6 are sup

Given that we can plainly see from the chat logs that the allegations in 19-22 are baseless, why is it reasonable to believe that the allegations in 4-6 are supported by evidence? It seems just as likely to me that Assange was advocating for hackers to spend some of their time looking for documents he feels are in the public interest. I'm just speculating here, but isn't it likely that the congressional records system was not hacked but rather documents posted on it were simply difficult to find, and that if Assange could convince hackers to spend their time researching this then more information could be reported to the public? Given how badly the prosecution has outright lied and also twisted facts to fit its narrative in this case, and how it has abused process and procedure, why should we give it any benefit of the doubt? Who says this indictment is based on evidence? It's not as if the prosecutor is going to be punished at all when he turns out to be lying.