Selling anti-Clinton merchandise doesn't seem very unbiased to me: http://www.salon.com/2016/10/14/bill-clinton-bimbo-poll-wiki...

Podesta/Clinton were specifically going after Assange(and WikiLeaks)... The whole reason he was seeking asylum.

Assange himself admitted it was payback,

Not questioning that, but doesn't it kind of destroy the notion of Wikileaks being unbiased when it came to the US elections?

"This is payback because she's coming after me, but otherwise we disseminate information in a fair and balanced way" doesn't seem plausible to me.

This was bad:

"Can't we just drone strike this guy?" -- Clinton, on Assange

Clearly selling t-shirts is worse though.

Poor taste maybe, but clearly a joke. Unless you think she was suggesting a drone strike on central London.

Those who have murdered dozens of people via some method, are rarely funny when attempting to joke about that method.

No, but I think she was suggesting assassination in what she considered to be a light-hearted manner.

From that link:

“sources at the State Department,” a vague and anonymous reference that does not yield to verification.

Anonymous sources are unreliable? That seems important to remember...

It's exceedingly unlikely that a State insider would talk to TruePundit, which was virtually unknown before this story, instead of WaPo, or Fox News if they really had an axe to grind.

The WSJ has a record of having anonymous sources whose stories pan out. TruePundit not so much.

Check out the non-denial denial video by Hillary at the end. First "I don't recall" followed by "if it did happen, it was a joke".

Why wouldn't she simply deny it if it wasn't true?

I wasn't making a comparison. I was saying that selling merchandise mocking/targeting one candidate and not the other makes you seem quite biased.

A) Why is their bias relevant? Their business isn't writing opinion editorials, it's releasing secrets.

B) You'd be biased too if somebody was trying to kill you for doing your job. Furthermore, why is it bad to be biased against a candidate that wants to kill you? Does it interfere with the secrets leaking process? Was Deep Throat's testimony marred by his political convictions?

C) When asked which candidate he preferred Assange said that it's like choosing between Chlamydia and Gonorrhea.

D) If there was a critical dump of Trump emails which he sat on, fair enough. There wasn't.

A) I was responding to someone who said "I don't see the slant". That's how the slant became relevant.

B) Probably. And it would quite likely influence my choices in what information to release and what to focus on.

C) Ok?

D) How can we know there wasn't data critical of Trump's campaign that Wikileaks sat on? If Wikileaks wasn't selling anti-Hillary merchandise I'd have an easier time believing that there wasn't.

It's pretty easy. When they were attacking the republicans everybody on the left loved them. Now they are attacking the democrats, ergo they have zero credibility and are working with our enemies.