[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...)