An interview with Assange. The interviewer doesn't change what Assange says, does it?

It does when the interviewer is more interested in putting on a show than hearing from a source. Read the transcript (or see my post above). Constant interruptions, reinterpretations, jumping around in timelines, etc. It's a horrible interview meant to extract one or two talking points.

That's the primary source, whether or not you like the interviewer, company he works for, what his ulterior motives are, etc. This is the interview where the question was asked and answered.

You can disbelieve what Assange says if you don't believe him. Discounting what Assange says, explicitly, clearly and deliberately because Hannity is interviewing him is foolish. It was a friendly interview. So what.

> That's the primary source, whether or not you like the interviewer, company he works for, what his ulterior motives are, etc.

Weird how I didn't mention any of these in my comment. The problem is that the interview is not designed to elicit credible testimony. It's designed to put on a show. Thus, I discount it heavily.

Well, if the interviewer was CIA interrogator...

The transcript is a textbook example of begging the question. And the first paragraph fully spells out why Hannity was there, which was to try and dispel the idea that Russia helped Trump. Hannity doesn't even pretend.

Not to mention the way the questions were worded allowed Assange to answer without answering. Did the Russian government directly give Assange that data? No, and that would be hilariously inept for Russia. The way Hannity phrases all his questions allows Assange to easily answer "no." Just a terrible interview.

This "interview" is why Hannity is not, and should not be considered, a journalist.

Ad hominem.