Leaking information about war crimes (1) deters from future war crimes (2) helps government transparency.

1. This has been done before Wikileaks and after.

2. Doesn't seem to have made much difference beyond spreading cynicism as it was never appropriately published.

3. This would have been despite Wikileaks.

Sometimes. I think it was published just fine. If you admit it's a good thing or that it would have happened regardless, why persecute for 15 years?

He repeatedly inferred that Seth Rich was his DNC source even though his emails showed he continued communicating with his "source" long after Seth Rich was found dead (the source was Russian military intelligence). He was also messaging Donald Trump Jr. during that time period.

That's not journalism, that's dishonesty and activism.

You'll have to link sources on the above quote. But even if he was a Republican-oriented journalist, that would make him one of the most endangered species on the planet.

> He repeatedly inferred that Seth Rich was his DNC source...

ITYM he repeatedly implied that Seth Rich was his DNC source, so readers should infer it.

Speaking truth to power.

Information must be free.