If this was even vaguely true then it would be what he is being extradited for. It's not, because it's not.
If you'd read the article, you'd know this. The USA is literally making crimes up, accusing Assange of them, and then finding "evidence" from a dodgy Icelandic criminal to support their case. Said criminal has now admitted that he lied about that evidence.
What should happen now is that the entire case collapses and Assange is released. That's not happening because the system is corrupt. This is important and we need to be making more noise about such a blatant abuse of justice.
> The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality)
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review...
That is from the section discussing extradition to the US. Clearly you are wrong.
That said, out of your example only “illegally sourcing” the information is potentially illegal. The information I read previously released by the US supporting this claim was extremely weak. I personally would never have supported the extradition on the evidence I saw were I on a grand jury tasked with it. That said, the UK of course needs to decide that it is extraditable on their end as well. You have argued this isn’t the case for a few posts now. Clearly you’re incorrect. That is the point I intended to make.
Your link says the United States (and many other countries) "are not required to provide prima facie evidence in support of their requests for extradition".
That said, I was more replying to the claims that dual criminality were not required. The UK still needs to find the acts themselves as illegal under UK law. I don't remember it being clearly so. Frankly, the released information I read coming from grand jury didn't even seem illegal to me according to US law.
That is really not how extradition works. But even if it was, illegally sourcing, publishing, and continuing to host secret documents is still very much illegal in the UK.
The other important thing to note is that the UK extradited a number of British citizens to the US for computer hacking charges, even though they were on UK soil at the time. The issue is not where the person physically is, but where they were doing the damage. The crime happened in the USA, not on UK soil.