[artichokeheart]

Well it's pretty obvious that Wikileaks is compromised. Question is who will step into the breach. Because whilst the dry still might release valuable information it will now be tainted with "but what did they leave out". I guess that's a universal journalistic issue (I'm not here to debate if leaking raw documents is journalism). Who do you trust?

[chii]

To me, Wikileaks is known to be compromised as soon as they have leaked the Hillary email. The timing is too nicely paired and the only actor benefitting is Russia.

But as with all propaganda, critical viewing and multiple sources are the tools to defeat them.

[tilertex]

There's an explanation that makes a lot more sense:

Wikileaks leaked the emails of the campaign manager for a candidate that's official stance on Assange was "can't we just drone the guy?"

Or, perhaps, as you seem to suggest, everyone is a Russian agent

[mrpopo]

Either way (whether Wikileaks is compromised, or they have arguably justifiable preferences for/against specific candidates), I think they should no longer be trusted as they have obviously showed bias.

[tilertex]

I don't think Wikileaks has ever claimed that they publish everything they receive.

Maybe they couldn't verify it's legitimacy.

Maybe they didn't find the texts of someone's daughter particularly interesting.

Maybe they haven't finished reviewing them yet.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water just yet.

[duxup]

What does your second paragraph mean regarding an explanation?

[tilertex]

Means the simplest explanation is probably the best.

As in, Wikileaks isn't an evil Russian agent

Assange/Wikileaks leaked the Podesta emails in the most effective way possible to generate interest and subsequently damage the Clinton campaign since Clinton in particular is not fond of him (eg https://us-east-1.tchyn.io/snopes-production/uploads/2016/10...)