Not really. The way I see it (and what I meant), is that although truthful facts can be presented in a way that favours one side, the presentation does not change the value of truth itself. Claiming that "truth has a side" is an attempt to disqualify information because you don't like it, and should not be accepted as valid reasoning by well-thinking people.

publishing dirt on one but not the other is helping the other person -- taking a side, IOW.

Then the publisher has a side, not the truth itself.

Do you have any reason to think that Wikileaks has the data on both sides, but only presents half?

You claimed "he had nothing on Trump". And the links clearly counter that.

That's my last reply to you. I don't like my discussion partners to sleazily try and retroactively change their claims to something nobody ever talked about when shown counter arguments. That's not an honest mistake, that's simply dishonest and a waste of time.

and "undermines the democratic process by using slush funds, illegal foreign donations and a slew of felonious crimes" is hardly a moral equivalent.

So I double down on my assertion: Wikileaks has nothing on Trump.