Agreed. Prick has had his porsches there for years. Not notable.
Nope. Pentagon Papers case demonstrated that publishers are not liable for publishing leaks.
It's a legal issue.
Wiki/JA are considered publishers under US law. That means they are entitled to the same legal protections as the NYT or WP. Wiki does not originate information, they merely publish it. That's the bedrock defense, tested by the SC. They can charge him, and even imprison him, but ultimately he did nothing illegal, in the broad sense of the law.
Pretty much. The basics are that a publisher is anyone who "makes it public", that is, distributes content publicly. The legal theory goes back to the Federalist Papers and before. As long as it isn't libel or slanderous, publishers are generally protected from criminal process regarding information that they publish, even leaks from confidential government sources. It's one of the reasons why the USA is free, and the EU isn't.
Concur. This was staged political theater designed to tip the first domino. Don't be surprised if we see JA in Senate committee testimony before the end of the month.
The publisher is not culpable, but the leaker is. Whistleblower protections have limits when it comes to classified data. Publishers' theoretical limits are the hazy "public interests", and that's a protected class under US law.