You seem to rely on what Assange has said being the final and indeed only test of truth. Go right ahead. Such a stance speaks for itself. However, Assange says a lot of things and some are rather more believable - and unflattering - than others.
But let's look at some particulars:
WikiLeaks as an impoverished organization running on shoestring, being financed via the Assange Piggy Bank::
http://wikileaks.org/Banking-Blockade.html: "The attack has blocked over 90% of the non-profit organization’s donations, costing some $15M in lost revenue." Translating from math to words, if $15m is 90% then their donations would typically amount to $16.6million.
That's quite a "begging bowl".
And look at this article here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/11/wikileaks_nda_leaked/ and note the link to a copy of the NDA that WIkipedia staff must sign. Let me quote a few lines from it: ".. loss and damage to WikiLeaks including without limitation loss and damage in the nature of A) Loss of opportunity to sell the information to other news broadcasters and publishers . . . D) Loss of value of the information F)Possible legal proceedings against WikiLeaks for loss of value to parties of other agreements. (Further on:) The parties agree that a genuine and reasonable pre-estimate of the loss to WikiLeaks from a breach of this agreement based on a typical open market valuation for this information for a significant breach of this agreement is in the region of twelve million pounds sterling.)"
Read this too:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/02/the-guardian-201102?currentPage=1 and note the following line:"Enraged that he had lost control, Assange unleashed his threat, arguing that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released." Oh wait, Vanity Fair must *also* be involved in an anti-WikiLeaks conspiracy.
And just in case you don't get the message, let me quote this from WikiLeaks NDA: "All information. . . provided by WikiLeaks, is confidential remains the property of WikiLeaks."
In short: WIkiLeaks has millions of dollars flowing through it hands form both donations and sale of documents given to it, is indeed in the business of selling information and documents, is zealous about guarding what it considers its property, and, most importantly, is certainly *not* being financed out of Assange's piggy bank. The only pig here is Assange himself, and if he taken anything out of his piggy bank, the only way it could have gotten into that piggy bank was via money sent to WikiLeaks and put in his piggy bank.
(We have not even touched the fact that John Young of Cryptome considers that WikiLeaks is a criminal organization and that their ultimate backer is George Soros:
First, is the original Cryptome posting here:
"Wikileaks has always been a commercial enterprise hiding behind a narcissistic "public interest" PR, says Cryptome operator John Young in a scathing critique of the site."
"They have been selling restricted information from the beginning of their enterprises. Some do it as employees and off-the-books agents of governments and business and individuals, some do it as rogue entrepreneurs like Wikileaks"
"Assange stated at the beginning of Wikileaks it expected to make big bucks, $5M the first year he wrote on a private mail list -- among other pimping messages later published on Cryptome."
"Soros and the Kochs have their lesser-known Internet promoters backing Wikileaks generously. And they expect good return on their investment, not just the freebies used to attract attention."
There is also this Register article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/07/cryptome_on_wikileaks/ which contains links not only to the Cryptome post, but also to a page with an article and an audio file of an interview with Young:
I will quote the article:
"I think it is a money-making operation, no doubt," Young said of WikiLeaks.
"It follows the model of a number of other business intelligence operations. Selling intelligence information is a very lucrative field, and so they are following that model, usually cloaked in some kind of public benefit,"
Asked specifically whether he was charging WikiLeaks with selling classified information and documents, Young replied, "Yes."
Re: Your statements concerning the legal implications of WikiLeaks and any donations from them to Bradley Manning's defense:
Here's some quotes: "Wikileaks has donated $15,000 to the Bradley Manning Support Network. . . .It's taken Wikileaks seven months to honour its pledge to pay Manning's legal fees - and the gift still leaves the support group a few dollars short of its $115,000 target. . .Assange, meanwhile, has signed lucrative book deals worth $1.7m (£1.1m)."
So let's re-read your statement: "As for Manning's finances Wikileaks could never publicly give him one single penny. To do that in public would be the link that the FBI needed to confirm his guilt and connection to Wikileaks. Manning would be found guilty before the trial had started. Public financial help from Wikileaks would crucify the man."
Now, note that WikiLeaks *has* given money to Manning, Manning *has* accepted it, and that the FBI was investigating a WikiLeaks-Manning connection before this. Also note that the FBI, and even moderately educated people know that such a donation has no legal bearing on the matter in *any* court of law.
You seem to have already investigated the sex charges against Assange and found them to be fraudulent. I am curious to know when you were able to depose the women involved.
"It was the publicly rigged charge along with the rigged deportation hearing that made him money." Are they "rigged" because they are contrary to law and the evidence presents, or are they "rigged" simply because you like Assange?
Well, seeing as how you were wrong about everything else that you wrote, the overwhelming probability is that you are wrong about this too. Just based on your, you know, track record.