Despite what you might have heard from CNN [1], it's not illegal [2] to read wikileaks.

The password reset email [3] you seem to obliquely reference was actually a phishing scam that appears to have led to this hack. Note the fake bit.ly reset link. Finally, we know these haven't been tampered with because we can validate the DKIM signatures. [4]

[1] CNN's saying "it's illegal" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE

[2] Lawyer saying it's legal - https://popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-read-...

[3] The spear phishing email that busted them - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34899

[4] Erratasec discussing DKIM validation - http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/yes-we-can-validate-wikile...

Podesta, Clinton's campaign manager, kept sent his password in plaintext. It was found among the initial Wikileaks dumps and then several of his accounts (both personal and professional) were compromised, which lead to more leaks.

There definitely is sensitive information in there, but to answer your question: I'm sure some of it is being screened, but obviously not all of it.

For me, it is not acceptable to leak sensitive information about high rank political figures. --bring on the downvotes--

No one cares about your stance without what kind of logic you used to arrive at that stance. Please share why you feel this way and I will happily upvote you, even if I disagree with it.

These are emails from a private organization. Leaking info about a candidate ≠ leaking sensitive classified gov't info. If there's classified govt info on the private servers then who is responsible are the officials for not respecting expected limits between their government aparatus and their professional extension service. Now I personally don't think it's practical to expect them to seperate them completely, or that there was much of any wrong doing from hilary's side. She's trying to be effective. She's not excelling at that as an executive as well as she has historicly achieved as a back-door politician. Infosec is lacking. i think that's good though. Keep them dumb. It improves their transparency with us, their electorate. Let's get over it and focus on the issues.

Is it more acceptable for political figures of lesser rank? Why the distinction?

So I see you're a big fan of Richard Nixon.

Uh, the emails were already leaked, hiding them here doesn't stop that leak... Anyone can get them online at wikileaks. People running the campaign had weeks at this point to reset passwords and warn people.

One issue is that presupposes you can recognize classified information if the markings for that have been removed. This came up with Sidney Blumenthal's forwarding of NSA Top Secret/SAP/SCI GAMMA intelligence, which by definition few people would recognize just from the format and style.

Certainly not WikiLeaks.

AFAIK Clinton's were originally sourced from State Department, who censored it appropriately.

Nobody. WikiLeaks is playing politics and doling them out as they see fit.

Whoever provided the leaked data is free to share that information differently if they are upset about how WikiLeaks is doing so.