Seems quite a bit more nuanced than the headline.
I'm glad Hillary lost, but don't believe the ends justify the means.
In the end, this has all been a farce designed to fool us all. I suspect some of it worked, some of it did not.
My thinking was I'd rather have Trump in the whitehouse than clinton, because he'd be a lame duck president even with an all GOP congress -- he's totally crazy and narcissistic so will get nothing done, he'll polarize the whole country and hopefully bring out blue in 2018, and by 2020 we might get an anti-neoliberal candidate (from the left) again running for office.
So far I'm pretty right in that he's not really accomplished anything except make himself and the country look absolutely retarded. Lots of red seats have already gone blue in parts of the country where that's rare.
Clinton would've been more of the same, more supporting the corporate agenda over the people, and we wouldn't get the change we need. By throwing Trump in the mix we make America worse for a bit, but in the end it could cause us to really get the change we need. That's why I wrote in Bernie and did not vote for Clinton.
Why would you imagine that effect based on that premise? Obviously, Assange was transactionally useful to Trump, but he doesn't seem to have loyalty to Trump or the Republican Party, and Republicans have been calling for his head longer and more forcefully than Democrats.
Edit: Is it possible they don't use spellcheck on secure article prep? On second pass that makes sense.