Addressing point 2 from your post: during the extradition hearing, a couple of witnesses declared that sometimes journalists are actively helping sources to avo

Addressing point 2 from your post: during the extradition hearing, a couple of witnesses declared that sometimes journalists are actively helping sources to avoid detection. See on Craig's Murray blog[1], I remember Daniel Ellsberg also had a similar comment but I can't find it at the moment: > Lewis You have as a journalist merely been the passive recipient of official information. Presumably you have never done anything criminal to obtain government information? > Hager You said “passive”. That is not the way we work. Journalists not only actively work our sources. We go out and find our sources. The information might come in documents. It might come on a memory stick. In most cases our sources are breaking the law. Our duty is to help protect them from being caught. We actively help them cover their backs sometimes. In point 3 you're convinced that the timing for releasing the Democratic papers was related to undermining the presidential bid intentionally. However I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that an impartial journalist would release sooner rather than later documents that pertain to a current developing event. Withholding them would have been "actively" getting involved in the presidential election. I think the blame for the leak lays solely with the people that leaked them, not with Wikileaks or Assange. (Also, I see that someone else already clarified the situation about the European Court of Human Rights.) [1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-13/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...