Realistically, he simply pissed off members of the ruling class of the US. Their presence has become significantly more obvious in recent years.
Other than that, I'd say it's mostly a 'show me the man, I'll show you the crime' sort of thing.
> In reality he laundered hacked materials he knowingly received from an adversarial to the USA nation state actor, and released it deliberately to interfere with the US election process to damage a POTUS candidate he didn't like.
I know that you cannot and will not, because it doesn't say that. But you can try your darnedest. Give it a good college try.
> On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency.[12][66][67] Multiple U.S intelligence agencies concluded people with direct ties to the Kremlin gave WikiLeaks hacked emails from the DNC and additional sources such as John Podesta, campaign chairman for Hillary Clinton.
> On July 27, 2016, The New York Times reported that Julian Assange, in an interview on British ITV on June 12, 2016, had "made it clear that he hoped to harm Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the presidency", and that in a later interview[118] on the program Democracy Now! on July 25, 2016, the first day of the Democratic National Convention, he acknowledged that "he had timed their release to coincide with the Democratic convention."[50][119] In an interview with CNN, Assange would neither confirm nor deny who WikiLeaks' sources were; he claimed that his website "... might release "a lot more material" relevant to the US electoral campaign ..."
How do we know it? "CIA told us." Why do we believe it? "CIA told us." What evidence do we have? "CIA told us so." How'd they come to this conclusion? "That's for them to know and us to take in faith." Do they have a history of lying? "Yes." To Congress? "Yes." Are there any consequences for this? "No." Okay, so you want to steer our country and globe like this? "Yes."
It's BS turtles all the way down. Oh, and btw their primary collaborators are pathological, serial liar, child molestors who are both threatened with prosecutorial jeopardy and granted legal immunity.
Maybe it's you who doesn't like the facts?
"The Office determined that it did not have admissible evidence that was probably sufficient to obtain and sustain a Section 1030 conspiracy conviction of WikiLeaks, Assange, or Stone."
"With respect to Wikileaks and Assange, this Office determined the admissible evidence to be insufficient on both the agreement and knowledge prongs."
They literally redacted (and way later un-redacted) the part that recognized that they had zero evidence. Pathetic beyond any conceivable reality, I know, but there it is. Page 177. Good luck with your theories.
https://epic.org/foia/doj/mueller-report/Mueller-Report-Repr...