Crown Prosecution Service lawyers representing the US government contend WikiLeaks was in the “business of encouraging individuals to hack into computers.”
Another thing that doesn't make legal sense in this case, is that they seem to use "Wikileaks" and "Assange" interchangeably, which is absurd because only Assange, the person, is being prosecuted. Assange is on trial but the Wikileaks website is still up and available to everyone. We know from cases like Silk Road and even American Herald Tribune, that the DOJ can and will shut down sites no matter where they are hosted. So it's clear they are not prosecuting the website or organization that is Wikileaks right now, and it's also clear that Assange (who is in a maximum security prison) is not identical with Wikileaks the organization, website, Twitter account, etc. But the prosecution names "Wikileaks" in their arguments, not who is actually on trial. This is what makes the whole case impossible to explain to the public, because it's as if the prosecution isn't even sure who it is prosecuting and why.
Another thing that doesn't make legal sense in this case, is that they seem to use "Wikileaks" and "Assange" interchangeably, which is absurd because only Assange, the person, is being prosecuted. Assange is on trial but the Wikileaks website is still up and available to everyone. We know from cases like Silk Road and even American Herald Tribune, that the DOJ can and will shut down sites no matter where they are hosted. So it's clear they are not prosecuting the website or organization that is Wikileaks right now, and it's also clear that Assange (who is in a maximum security prison) is not identical with Wikileaks the organization, website, Twitter account, etc. But the prosecution names "Wikileaks" in their arguments, not who is actually on trial. This is what makes the whole case impossible to explain to the public, because it's as if the prosecution isn't even sure who it is prosecuting and why.