Stop minimising his offences and conviction; he was convicted on 25 counts (for very serious offences) and, as we can now see, the sentence was a gross mistake. As I've indicated previously, early offences are good predictors of later ones, and Assange is a lesson here; his current round includes fencing stolen secrets, including his (to understate the case) egregious edit of the helicopter incident. He should have been extradited for his hostile acts on Pentagon hardware, and there were others: "Police also found details of hundreds of stolen passwords for networks around the world along with the dates when he obtained them. Among them were passwords for the US Air force 7th Command Group in the Pentagon." Assange also hacked computers to monitor the Australian Federal Police investigation into *his* criminal activities, after which he said to the judge "Your honour, I feel a great misjustice [sic] has been done and I would like to record the fact that you have been misled by the prosecution"
Me suggesting? I have made no suggestion, but I can tell you that there is no visible legal, technical reason why his extradition ought not to go ahead, though I am sure that he will continue to hold open air weepy sessions to curry favour and replace his diminishing band of supporters. Moreover, attempting to read what is going on in the black box is for people who believe in Cracker, fairies at the bottom of the garden and mediums. You cannot. No one can. It is impossible. The nearest that you can get to this is in reading behavioural data in meat space and inferring by analogy. That's forensic speak (see my earlier comments on John Locke for a clarification on that term, should you need it).
Furthermore his magnum opus would appear to consist of various ways of stealing information (for which he was convicted) and then fencing it (ostensibly when taken by Bradley Manning, whom he has left to the wolves, excluding a minimal defence fund contribution) whilst claiming ownership; the proposed pay wall, the 'auto' biography (released because, in spite of his cold feet, he had signed an agreement and had *taken* an advance fee from the publisher which they were entitled to recoup). Indeed, when the Guardian started publishing some of the data his hissy fit was of massive proportions, because he believed them to be 'his'; oh no Jules, the data belong to the original owners, not to you. In addition the Americans should have extradited him at the time of his first offence, since this was a substantial criminal offence (a predictor) committed on their servers by a man who can certainly not claim that he was hunting UFO data.
To understand more about him you might want to read the things that he written and said, including his tart comments about the expendability of informants in Afghanistan, who presumably may eat cake.
Bradley Manning? A few crumbs from the Assange table to help defray some legal costs, that's all. Plausible deniability, as with international power politics/real politik, the very sort of thing he supposedly opposes. One cannot make a Wikiomelette without cracking informant heads. After all, did Jules himself not say of the Afghan informants that they chose? Here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351927/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-new-book-Afghan-informants-deserve-killed.html
"Assange's apparent gung-ho attitude in an early meeting to naming U.S. informants stunned his media collaborators, the new book claimed.
The title said he told international reporters: 'Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.' The book continues: 'There was, for a moment, silence around the table.'"
Well that's a good predictor where Manning's health is concerned.