> How could WikiLeaks be interpreted as anything other than promoting civil liberties? Its sole purpose ...

Perhaps taken at face value that's true, but I judge them by their actions:

* They consistently advocate for one political point of view, an anti-US government one. Where are leaks about Putin? Bernie Sanders? Jill Stein? For comparison, the NY Times is hard on both candidates: For example, they both broke the Clinton email server story and Trump's tax return.

* They are cooperating in what appears to be a Russian intelligence disinformation campaign to disrupt U.S. democracy. Assange seems too smart to be an unwitting participant.

* There are reports it's due to a vendetta Assange has against Clinton.

Based on the above and other actions, I question whether their mission really is to promote civil liberties.

Wikileaks can only publish what they are given. If nobody gives them leaks on Putin, Sanders etc. they can't publish any.

A good point, but how do we know it's true? Does Wikileaks solicit material? Are they selective about what they publish?

I see what they claim to do, but it's too important to take at face value.

What possible corruption is revealed by the quoted email?

Context for the remainder so you can know they aren't cherry-picked and your reading of whatever you get out of any of them is through your own bias alone and not Assange's, the NYT editorial team's or whoever else. You only need to trust that Assange will publish you don't have to care what he thinks about anything else.

This would be more convincing if Assange wasn't always talking up the next batch, the contingency files, etc. Not only is he withholding publication, but he's bragging about it, which really does make it hard to believe he's just passing everything along.

ok so your problem is as a publisher he shouldn't promote his publication. And he by doing so he's withholding publication of something unspecified that we can't know about.

I'll disagree with that and get on with life.