any links to evidence of this?

Source?

Wikileaks withheld a batch of emails showing a $2.2 billion transaction between the Syrian regime and a Russian government-owned bank, according to a Daily Dot report. If true, the report will likely have a lasting negative impact on Wikileaks’ credibility. The report alleges that the transparency organization betrayed its own core values of “pristine leaking,” and did so in a way that protects Russia’s public image.

...

The report claims batch of emails were not included in the cache of documents Wikileaks published under the name the “Syria Files”in 2012. The emails allegedly show correspondence between the Central Bank of Syria and Russia’s VTB Bank. When the Daily Dot asked Wikileaks for comment, the transparency organization denied removing the batch of emails and vaguely threatened the journalist, saying, “You can be sure we will return the favor one day.”

It’s entirely possible that the hackers removed the email batch from the data dump it provided to Wikileaks. But it also seems very unlikely. As Daily Dot reporters Dell Cameron and Patrick Howell O’Neill point out in their story, they received 500 pages showing every step the hackers went through to infiltrate the Syrian government’s networks. The reporters say, “the court records leaked to the Daily Dot reveal the Moscow bank’s emails were, in fact, part of the larger backup file containing numerous emails currently found on the WikiLeaks site.”

https://www.google.com/amp/gizmodo.com/wikileaks-may-have-wi...

So its a speculation by a forth-party. Why is this small news paper from Texas, 4,343 rank on alexa, credible for the claim that Wikileaks got everything in the backups but hiding parts of it? For example, do those 500 pages include any details to give the story validity that Daily Dot even got documents from "the hackers"?

I love the cognitive dissonance needed to ignore the 'court case has shown' but and instead find the need to attack a source based on its Alexa rating, ignoring the other sources who reported the same story. It's exemplary of most Wikileaks supporters I've found.

Oddly enough, they never question why Assange, after bragging about his intention to dump 'kompromat' on Putin in November 2011, suddenly changed his mind in doing so and then signed a tv deal with Russian state media 2 months later. It surely didn't have anything to do with the death threats Russian intelligence issued against Wikileaks, nor with Assange's meeting with Putin in December 2011.

Name calling is such a quality sign...

All the other sources wrote attributed the claims to Daily Dot. If they have independent verification of the hacker data we would have multiple independent claims and it would be a different matter. As it stand, it is only a single small news site from Texas that is staking their reputation behind this claim.