Those are all fair and valuable in their own right, but irrelevant to my point. His primary income comes from elsewhere, which means journalism isn't his profession. It is common in many fields for professionals to publish articles and reports a few times a year, but doing so does not make them journalists.
This is a critical distinction because if you obtain income from elsewhere, you are naturally and understandably incentivized to have your writings be ancillary to that income. This is why, to be a professional journalist, you cannot have a financial interest in your subject matter, and consequently why Richard Lewis cannot and should not be considered one any longer. I don't disparage the quality of his work or his historical impact on the scene, just the fact that he should still be considered a journalist and thus be granted the assumptions that title conveys in terms of his motivations.
As a sidenote, as I mentioned in my first post, people this title of journalist to both attack and defend him, and my point is that both are stupid. There are those who defend his twitter antics by calling him a journalist, while others use that same expectation to try and hold him to some higher standard, whereas in reality, neither are relevant points. He is a now a professional social media user, and as such is totally free to use his twitter to further that career, and he does. Furthermore, the antics where he does so should not be treated as the intellectual analysis of a journalist, nor should they be treated as violations of the journalistic code of ethics, because he simply isn't one.