Well it's pretty obvious that Wikileaks is compromised. Question is who will step into the breach. Because whilst the dry still might release valuable information it will now be tainted with "but what did they leave out". I guess that's a universal journalistic issue (I'm not here to debate if leaking raw documents is journalism). Who do you trust?

To me, Wikileaks is known to be compromised as soon as they have leaked the Hillary email. The timing is too nicely paired and the only actor benefitting is Russia.

But as with all propaganda, critical viewing and multiple sources are the tools to defeat them.

There's an explanation that makes a lot more sense:

Wikileaks leaked the emails of the campaign manager for a candidate that's official stance on Assange was "can't we just drone the guy?"

Or, perhaps, as you seem to suggest, everyone is a Russian agent

Either way (whether Wikileaks is compromised, or they have arguably justifiable preferences for/against specific candidates), I think they should no longer be trusted as they have obviously showed bias.

I don't think Wikileaks has ever claimed that they publish everything they receive.

Maybe they couldn't verify it's legitimacy.

Maybe they didn't find the texts of someone's daughter particularly interesting.

Maybe they haven't finished reviewing them yet.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water just yet.

What does your second paragraph mean regarding an explanation?

Means the simplest explanation is probably the best.

As in, Wikileaks isn't an evil Russian agent

Assange/Wikileaks leaked the Podesta emails in the most effective way possible to generate interest and subsequently damage the Clinton campaign since Clinton in particular is not fond of him (eg https://us-east-1.tchyn.io/snopes-production/uploads/2016/10...)

> [W]hen faced with an opportunity to post the equivalent of the Podesta emails on the Trump side, it appears that Assange decided not to do it.

The Podesta emails were from the personal email account of John Podesta. Many of the emails were used for professional purposes. By contrast, the emails here are from Paul Manafort's daughter's account. In the first, Podesta is both the owner of the email account and the subject of interest. In the second, the subject of interest is not the owner of the email account. The two cases are not "equivalent."

Just a hunch - I feel as though Wikileaks is hanging on to any dirt they have on the Republicans and Trump's clique so they can use it as leverage should Julian Assange be taken into custody in the UK. All it would take is a taste of what they have to make the administration apply pressure on the DoJ to halt deportation.

Considering Wikileaks is said to have a dead mans switch, there's likely to be at least some unpublished material

Wha it includes is really anyone's guess

Or, perhaps the Republican/Trump dirt, like the missing link (in evolutionary theory), doesn't exist?

Based on what?

First, it's a hunch so there is nothing to support its veracity. But Assange has never been caught without a backup plan and he'd be stupid to put all of his cards on the table.

What would not being caught with a backup plan look like to you?

Would getting stuck in an embassy qualify?

Not sure whether you're saying being stuck in an embassy meant he lacked a backup plan or whether it was one, but I'd side with him being able to stay in the embassy as a backup plan considering WL suspected there was a secret grand jury indictment against Assange.