Wikileaks IS NOT a “neutral” and “trusted” source, it's actually now just part of the Kremlin's propaganda, and should be viewed in the same way as RT, Sputnik and other Russian propaganda channels are viewed, as the Kremlin's mouthpiece and not as a credible and objective “news” source, as many people still belive it to be.
This is not really a surprise, seeing how Assange used to work for directly Putin and his propaganda apparateus in the past, when he had his own show on RT, and recived a monthly paycheck from Moscow for being a good little “useful idiot”.
These current batch of “leaks”, the Podestra emails, are the result of direct Russian state action, as even Trump's VP, Mike Pence, has admitted to that. However, Wikileaks and Julain Assange vhemently deny that Russia had anything to do with these leaks, and portray them as coming from a “neutral” source.
In light of the warm relations between Trump and Putin, and it is no secret that Putin would love to see Donlad Trump as the next president of the US. There is little doubt that WikiLeaks is used as a conduit for transferring information from the Kremlin to the general public, in the guise of “trusred” and “neutral” source.
The Russians stole the emails from the mailbox of John Podesta, the head of Clinton's campaign, and from the Democratic Party headquarters. The Russians then filtered and edited the information they hacked, and delivered only what they wanted to to Wikileaks who published it in the pretence of as if these emails came directly from Podestra to wikileaks, and were never tampered with.
The point is that we have no way of knowing of what of this is really accurate. If someone stole your email they can easily plant where words and quotes that are not yours; has anyone even asked themselves if WikiLeaks has even tried to confirm this information? I mean besides with Putin?
Previously, WikiLeaks would cooperate with newspapers around the world whenever they wanted to leak important material. The leaked raw material would be sent to major newspapers around the world to allow researchers to dive and search for stories, crosscheck and scrutinize them in order to establish their credebility. Suddenly in this story, Wikileaks are working in reverse; they publish the “raw information” only without having submitted it to any scrutniy or even basic fact checking.
Now because this material was never inspected outside the Kremlin and Assange's computer, there's no way to asertain what is truth, what's a half truth and what's a blatant lie.
There's no doubt that some of the emails which expose Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party, are true, but that only means, at best, that we're exposed to a half truth. Because what we see is what the Kremlin and Putin version to the Pdestra emails, what they chose for us to see, we are not seeing the big picture, infact, we're only seeing twisted part of the picture.
And that's how good propaganda works, it doesn't lie, not outright anyway, it tells half truths, which are then much harder to refute and much easier to belive.
Also the previous scandals surrounding Hillary Clinton, her foundation, the way she treated her Bill's sexual assault victims, Libya, Iraq, her lies about her private servers and email deletion, the fact that she and bill recived tens of millions of dollars in “speaking fees” from multinational corporations and big banks, etc... etc... actually dwarf anything that these emails “exposed”.
This article is not meant to denounce everything Wikileaks has ever published or revealed, some of it was extremely valuable and important information, but just to shine a light on Wikileaks and how people treat it as a "neutral and unbiased" source that can be trusted blindly, while the truth is that they are the exact opposite of the definition of a neutral and unbiased source, and are currently just part of the Russian propaganda apartaus.
Also, it never ceases to amaze me that some people WILL ALWAYS question anything that comes out of Washington, or from any other western governement, or any news media associated with them, but will always believe whatever Moscow and Putin says.