None of that makes any sense to me, and it lacks credibility.
1. Daily dot has not published any evidence of actually having this document. It could be entirely made up.
2. Even if such a document exists, there's no guarantee that Wikileaks' source was the same source that somehow ended up in the hands of US courts.
3. Why the hell would wikileaks publish so many other juicy files in the Syria Files, but selectively withhold this one minor document about a money transfer between two allies at a time of war? Yes, it's a large sum that's claimed to have been transferred, but in the midst of the Syrian Civil War in 2011? A few billion is peanuts.
I don't buy it.
edit: The BBC story is about Jared Kushner and is not really about Wikileaks.
edit2: 4. Considering that Daily Dot names the group that is behind the attack, why haven't the hackers who allegedly sent the documents to Wikileaks said anything about this situation? They have the power to tarnish their reputation or confirm that it wasn't sent.
I don't know who at Microsoft thought this was a good idea but they're clearly insane. I had nothing in particular against Edge and even use it sometimes, but after this there's no way I'm going to use it. The last thing I need is some delusional crazies who probably believe Assange works for Putin telling me what is and isn't real.
[0] https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/09/wikileaks-may-have-withhe...
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42019835
[2] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-wikileaks-withheld...