Guardian journalist, David Leigh, claimed that Julian Assange initially refused to redact the names of informants. In his book, co-authored with Luke Harding, WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, Leigh claimed Assange to have said in relation to whether the names should be redacted, "Well, they're informants. So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." In response to the book's publication, WikiLeaks posted on Twitter: "The Guardian book serialization contains malicious libels. We will be taking action." When Douglas Murray relayed these comments in a debate, Assange interjected "We are in the process of suing The Guardian in relation to that comment." The Guardian claimed the following day that they had 'not received any notification of such action from WikiLeaks or its lawyers', two months after the publication of the book.
So what you report is a claim that Assang himself has strongly denied.
In any case, the names of informants were published. He did it. That's all you need to know about the man.
Murray didn't back down, moving on to make reference to the Guardian's claim that Assange "didn't care" about Afghan informants who were identified as a result of the release of the war logs.
Assange hit back: "Point of order! We are in the process of suing the Guardian . . ." After a bit of back and forth about libel laws – Assange said he has campaigned for their reform, but that people should have recourse when allegations are made against them – Murray drawled: "I think I'll take from that that Mr Assange thinks libel law is good when he's using it."
I cannot see where Assange said '"it's not true" on twitter', as you report, but in any case it seems clear that he didn't just make some off-hand remark on a social medium, as you seem to suggest.
In any case, I don't see why using twitter as a platform would reduce the validity of such a statement. There's a difference between tweeting to your followers you're going vegan and claiming you're suing the Guardian for libel.
>> In any case, the names of informants were published. He did it. That's all you need to know about the man.
To be frank, I don't much care about statements that start with "that's all you need to know". I usually prefer to chose for myself how much I need to know of anything.
The most startling is the allegation that Paul Manafort personally visited Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy – probably the most surveilled building in the UK – secretly, more than once, "according to sources."
Why didn't he bring that case?