Assange is partially responsible for the current administration taking office...If anything, they would be bending over backwards to find a way to pardon him for that favor. And also for embarrassing the previous political administration.

It turns out, it's not politics. It's that the US government believes that Assange broke the law when he tried to help Manning. If it were another set of laws, they might have turned a blind eye. But trying to decrypt classified information, and furthermore, publishing classified information that put US field personnel at risk...that's not something they'll ever let slide, because it sets a precedent that there's no punishment for stealing classified US intelligence.

Contrast that to WaPo and other newspapers which faced no punishment for publishing classified documents...because they didn't come by those documents illegally.

[UPDATE] I'd like to expand on my earlier answer. It depends on what you consider to be "his situation" because Assange is in two separate situations: he's an accused rapist, and he is a publisher of sensitive government secrets. The problem is not that he's being treated any differently from any other accused rapist or from any other publisher of sensitive government secrets. The problem is the possibility that he is in the first situation because he is in the second situation.

Quite ironically, Assange is being railroaded because he tried to avoid the rape charges, which led to his self-imposed Ecuadorian imprisonment, his current British imprisonment, and his future US and/or Swedish imprisonment. If he hadn't tried to flee, it's possible the Swedish charges would have been dropped after perfunctory investigation. The British would never have needed to jail him. The previous US administration would likely have filed minimal charges against him or sought a token punishment to serve as a deterrent to others.

Plenty of others have exposed government secrets. Many of them won Pulitizers for their efforts...

Like Snowden exposing basically the biggest conspiracy of government employees breaking federal laws ever seen?

Journalists win Pulitzers, whistleblowers get their lives ruined for exposing criminal activity. This is a common theme the world over.

So far you have failed to name any actions you see as inappropriate.

What rules are being bent? Which actions violate due process or equal protection? Can you name any specific issues?

Assuming he is guilty of various crimes, how should he have been and be treated?

Or in other words what is wrong with the "due process" w.r.t. Assange?

Or is it simply that "he's not guilty" but will get convicted by an unfair justice system therefore the only just action is to leave him be?

I understand. I chose my words very carefully too when I said, "That assumption is precisely the problem."

The reason we have due process is not because society gets off on legal rituals, it's because a person can in fact be innocent despite the existence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As soon as you say, "Let's assume guilt," you've tossed due process out the window. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not just a catchy slogan. It's the bedrock of due process of law.

The answer to your question, "How is he being treated differently than what you would expect this hypothetical person should be treated?" is precisely that: you are hypothesizing his guilt before it has been proven. That is how he is being treated differently than I would hope and expect.

>That is how he is being treated differently than I would hope and expect.

You have problems with the assumption of guilt? Ok (setting aside how you know what people think), what actions are being taken as a result which are inappropriate?

If you have problems with due process it can't just be with what people assume, it has to be with their decisions and actions?

Put aside their assumptions and talk about actions. What is being done that violates due process?

Assume everyone executing the process is an angel at heart, what actions are wrong and why?

It has so far eluded me to get someone who thinks Assange is innocent to explain how he is being mistreated.

Let's assume we are uninterested in Assange's guilt and only interested in due process.

How is he being treated unfairly w.r.t. due process? (either illegally or if the laws are unjust, immorally)

So no, there is no overt indication that Assange is being treated any differently from any other accused rapist. But anyone who is content to leave it at that has blinders on.

How is he being mistreated specifically.

And yes, I'm aware that his actions helped the current administration, and it therefore doesn't make sense that they would railroad him. But this would not be the first time that this administration threw a former ally under the bus.

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/charging-julia...

A fair justice system does both. But fairness is unattainable, so one has to decide which failures are more desirable—the preference you suggest is both common and one I agree with, but it is not fairness but instead a preference for dealing with fairness being impractical.