It seems the author needs to brush up on Bayes' theorem, i.e. before giving a percentage confidence in a given theory, you need to consider the likely hood of the theory not occurring.

  #1 Analysts explain it away by saying, for example, 
  "The market was hoping for even better news than the 
  good news they got." A simpler explanation is that the 
  market is being manipulated.

This a false assumption, as I would say it is more likely that the analysts got it wrong. If analysts could predict the stock market with near 100% accuracy, then it wouldn't be a high risk investment option would it?

  #2 The lack of bombshells in the Wikileak materials 
  looks mighty suspicious to me

It is also wrong to assume that because no remarkable secrets have been exposed, that any have been leaked in the first place. This is a statement of pure fantasy based on no logic or facts.