As I implied, that court ruling requires me to believe that a minor govt functionary showed up at the Times unexpectedly and seduced them into putting their reputation on the line by believing he was carrying a fabulous treasure chest. Of course not impossible but seemingly a bit unlikely.
Similarly - and here I am woefully uninformed - I am expected to believe that Manning had access to treasure but was incapable of procuring it and conveying it without the help of Assange... to put it poorly.
But it does lead to your point, if I understand it, that conspiracy is difficult to prove. Just wanting an outcome does not make one a conspirator.
I think you are more 'on point' bringing up the issue of who is manipulating events and whether their desired outcome favors or threatens Manning. BTW, in my youth Manning would not likely have ever received a security clearance - for wise reasons that should now be apparent. (Kim Philby et al}
I was listening to the radio in the car tonight and caught a little of the Ben Shapiro show. Pretty sure this is what he was talking about. Might be worth looking for the audio/rebroadcast of his show.
NUTS! I meant 'threatens Assange'... Write it off to post surgery... or age... or the late hour. sigh