People keep saying this, but never include the story. What's the meat behind the claim that they did this?

The New York Times did reporting on the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Clinton emails that suggested the timing indicated political motivation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed...

The problem I have with this accusation is that it works either way. Had they published after the elections they would have been called a secret Clinton ally. There is always some group to gain/loose politically from exposing documents like that regardless of the timing.

They literally tweeted that their goal was to fuck her over.

This statement could definitely use a source

"Literally" is carrying too much weight there.

They made extremely clear, however, that they thought a Clinton victory in 2016 would be dangerous for the world, while a Trump victory would reign in the worst tendencies of liberal leadership.

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks...

I honestly don't get why people act like there is or ought to be some gentleman's agreement that no bad press should come out about a candidate shortly before an election. The final lead up to the election has traditionally been the time of most intense scrutiny, and if someone has dirty laundry, it really should be aired before they've been elected to a position of power.

I think the gentlemen's agreement would be to give a fair amount of time to rebuff. If someone says something that isn't true it takes time to respond because (1) the responder doesn't know what was claimed since it is a fabrication and (2) responder can't necessarily grasp the damage or interpretation of the claim until some polling data comes in.

Smears unleashed in the last week of the campaign are a bit below the belt. Doubt that is ever going to stop anyone though.

Indeed - surely the best time to have a full picture of a candidate is right before they go to the polls?!

Also not to be a whataboutist (I didn't have a horse in the race), but plenty of other dirt was released on other candidates in the run-up to the election, and I didn't see the Clinton campaign condemning the timing of its release...

> no bad press

Not bad press. The stolen materials of a state-sponsored attack released at the precise time it would do the most damage. And people are claiming with a straight face this was a coincidence and Wikileaks wasn't working with Russian intelligence, against the American democratic party.

Her entire career has been politics. Releasing any information on her at any time can be suggestive of political motivation.

The same New York Times that endorsed hillary?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-cl...

I'd take anything the New York Times's "reports" on political/etc with a grain of salt.

Also, I'm of the opinion that all news/media organizations are propaganda organizations. But so what? Let these propagandists fight to expose each other rather than colluding together to mislead the public by serving the same state.

They were very open about their desired outcomes alongside their releases. They had the express goal of affecting the election, as expressed by their site and their twitter.

Got any links to those tweets?