Le Pen and Putin probably don't write emails and Trump is tweeting :) But I agree, it is hard to follow the ethics of this, to say the least. Also, if I were sent leaked documents, it would be incredibly hard to understand and consider the ethics.

And they don't have aids that write e-mail either? I don't believe they all use letters with some wax to imprint their ring: it's 2017. The parent is right, Wikileaks has a murky agenda.

So because Wikileaks has had a couple of leaks from Hillary's crew and this Macron one among all the other ones [0] means they have a murky agenda?

Or do you mean the recent Vault 7 from CIA etc are also part of this newly found dark agenda, instead of a continuation of earlier leaks such as the Iraq War documents leak?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks#Leaks

Assange (let's get rid of pseudo-plurality of Wikileaks) has clearly observable political agenda, and it hasn't changed much. As long as it harms the United States and its allies, it will be disseminated. If it's something that implicates the "anti-imperialists" like Le Pen, Trump, Putin and their petty dictator buddies (e.g. Panama Files) it will be booed and downplayed by him.

There was a leak from Vladislav Surkov, personal adviser of Vladimir Putin among other functions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surkov_leaks

Apparently Assange wasn't interested in publicizing that one.

Haha, guys, come on. 'It's because Putin doesn't use email', sure, sure. 'Nothing to leak', indeed! Putin, Le Pen, Trump - paragons of ethical behaviour, squeaky clean. /s

Wikileaks publishes whatever the GRU feeds them, with gusto.

Supposedly, they use typewriters over there. At least that's what they want us to think, but why wouldn't they? Computers are inherently untrustable & likely malicious if you don't build the damn thing yourself and by the time you connect to the internet, all bets are off.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1017...

Trump can't take a leak without it getting leaked. Panama papers were equal opportunity... the leaks seem pretty well equal opportunity.

Wikileaks did not publish the Panama Papers, and in fact accused them of being part of an anti-Russian conspiracy.

Mr. Putin publicly said that he does not use internet at all[0]. In Russia Wikileaks-esque orgs are primarily busy in political elite wars[1]. That's always the same - corruption, dirty money, murders, robberies. Boring.

[0] https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/putin-answer-kids-questi...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/07/anonymous-inte...

Wikileaks is an English speaking organization with no Russian speakers on the staff, why would a leaker consider leaking Russian documents there? They can't leak what no one sends them, which also explains the other two.

Assange hosted a show for Russia Today back in 2012, so he knows some Russian speaking journalists who should be able to lend a hand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tomorrow

Assange hosted a show that RT acquired the first broadcast license for, I doubt he had much contact with RT employees for that show. And again, why would a Russian leaker consider Wikileaks over another organization full of Russian speakers?

Good point, but still, consider how simple it would be for them to get Russian speaking help, and how small an effort it is in comparison to the gain in publicity - if they got something, of course.

Why would they get something is the question? I doubt Wikileaks is that well known in Russia, most Americans have a vague idea of what it is already.

Panama Papers were heavy on info from more Russia sphere of influence. (And people criticized them for that for some reason.)

The Panama Papers were released by a group of journalists, not by Wikileaks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers

Oh I minsunderstood the comments, I thought you asked why there are no leaks on Russia in general.

Haha.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352

Putin is not using internet, he is old for that.

Tighter security or nothing to leak, I would imagine.

Because the FSB publicly threatened them after they were claiming they have shit on the Russian elite.

Couple months later, Assange was on RT.

Bias warning: I am a liberal democrat.

I see wikileaks as more of a 'balance of powers' organization. It sees all concentration of power, especially state power, as presenting a great danger to people. Thus it tries to "equalize" it. Thus Wikileaks's main focus has been America. Russia's secrets are known to other state actors, including the US, thus one superpower and a few great powers are in a position to stop any atrocity, if they choose to do so.

Not so with the USA. Many people, including Assange, believe that USA has been a dangerous state actor, leading to immense global suffering 1) directly, and 2) indirectly through financial, weapons, and political support (shielding them from UN resolutions and international justice) to ruthless dictators. For (1) see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes , and (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_...

The USA has also wielded state power internally against its citizens, with the highest rate of incarceration in the developed world, secret internment camps, spying by state agencies, and the suppression of its black citizens by violence and coercion.

US has intelligence and raw power superiority to rest of the world, Wikileaks believes that by creating more transparency about all aspects of government, it can create more awareness and global action. It has partially succeeded.

The above of course does not preclude USA also leading to great alleviation of global suffering - Vaccines, PEPFAR, saving the world @ WWII from Hitler, etc..

Nothing above should be construed as support to Wikileaks, I am merely trying to convey an understanding of an alternative viewpoint.

Then why nothing on Trump?

As Assange has stated repeatedly, he sees no difference between mainstream party politicians: Obama has continued NSA spying and indiscriminate drone bombings. He sees Trump as a genuine outsider to the dominant Washington polity and an alternative power network. He thinks whatever disrupts mainstream neoliberal/neocon world order is a good thing.

Again, please keep in mind I'm not a WikiLeaks supporter.