Swiss banker who helped WikiLeaks faces trial

A: Will Wikileaks help raise funds for their most notable source and fame-generator before Manning?

Indeed, and who else is in line for indictment besides the banker and Manning? According to another report the banker indictment is based on violation of Swiss bank secrecy laws, and is allegedly unrelated to the leak to Wikileaks. Hmm, that smells of disinformation about where the probe will go and what Wikileaks will do when drawn into it.

While there has been speculation that Manning is under pressure to make a deal to hang Wikileaks, there seems to be no speculation that Wikileaks would cut a deal to hang Manning. Or simply leave him to "twist slowly in the wind" a la Nixon's sacrifice of John Dean. Getting that message clearly, Dean fought back by testifying against Nixon, Haldeman and Ehrlichman, sending the latter two to jail and Nixon out the door.
Manning and his attorney, as with the Swiss banker, are not going to go down alone. The squeeze is on by all parties to save their lives as advised by attorneys, and not least, by the avid CYA supporters eager to avoid legal implication and who have a stake in their blind ambition (Blind Ambition the name of John Dean's tell-all moneymaker).
Question is who else among the Wikileaks' advisors and ex-advisors, insiders and ex-insiders, supporters and ex-supporters, journalists and publishers, foundations and lawyers, bloggers and anonymizers, are cutting their own deals to "tell the truth" about what goes on inside the "government-and-game changing" initiative. Subpoenas are likely widespread beyond the Twitter targets, apparently named to deflect attention from the multitudes unnamed. Follow the sucking sound of deals and money being offered and traced.
Rueful Whistleblower Lesson One: don't take the hit by yourself for mere transitory glory, forever stigmatized and out of work, or you are a greater fool than publisher's take you to be as they chuckle on the way to the bank and earn evermore awards for "speaking truth to power" and other "transparency" peddling blather.
Only leakers are at risk until they turn against those who contemn and abandon them as unpaid, untraceable "sources." No constitutional protection for sources but they do have means and methods for breaching that sacred Maginot Line, amply persuaded by prosecutors with big clubs and small carrots. Adrian Lamo, say, could have already supplied the unpublicized chats for Manning's rescue. MSM and Twitter, too, not to overlook the other sources who know how the government-whipsaw game is played.
First The New York Times, now The Guardian, soon the other MSM having bloodsucked the source dry, appear ready to twist Wikileaks in the wind, aiding and abetting US, UK, SE and CH, soon all-EU-NATO, RU and the others cablegated and threatened with exposure.
Has Wikileaks sufficient insurance against this global conspiracy of secretkeepers? If belief that justice will prevail, remember no court can function without government compensation thus must do what's best for law and order. Still, it is no secret that rats will rat on rats to keep their privileges.