1/ This WSJ article is so much garbage I thought I'd mention it. It's a good lesson in what's wrong with both "journalism" and "justice". 
2/ This conflates "politics" with "justice". The entire point of our justice system is that it's independent of politics. Whether or not U.S. politicians are unhappy with Assange should (and usually does) make no difference about whether he's prosecuted.
3/ The only issue is whether prosecutors are confident they have sufficient evidence to prove Assange guilty of a crime, which the article doesn't cover. The article makes it seem like this is a political decision.
4/ That's bad "justice", but the article is bad "journalism". The reporter is being played by anonymous sources in order to pursue their own agenda, such as those wanting to prosecute Assange for political reasons trying to get the press on their side.
5/ Ethically, reporters are supposed to protect anonymous sources only if they've got important news that could not otherwise be reported. Otherwise, sources are supposed to be named.
6/ None of that applies to this article. This article is clearly rumormongering. That Assange is about to be indicted, has been secretly indicted, about to be kicked out of the embassy, etc. has been constant for years.
