On the first, it's not really strange to think people with documents to leak would look for an outlet that shares their political opinions. The "selective" leak

On the first, it's not really strange to think people with documents to leak would look for an outlet that shares their political opinions. The "selective" leaks accusations are largely unfounded, with the one example given having been refused as much of the data had already been leaked. On the second,you're referring to the supposed hacking claim in the indictment. Even if the accusations are true, the "hacking" provided no additional documents. You can take issue with Assange's action there, but all the documents were acquired by regular journalism standards. I'd also like a source on the third one. Not someone discussing it, evidence of doctored documents. And the fourth is just untrue. While Wikileaks was going through the documents, the Guardian published the decryption key in a book. Your claim that their later releases included too much personal info is true, but that didn't kill people and it happened when Assange was trapped in the embassy unable to create the kind of vetting team.