We could gather around a campfire and argue all night long about whether or not it was ethical of Wikileaks to have published hacked emails, or whose interest Wikileaks serves, or who was supporting it during the election—whether it was the Russians or Santa Claus—and we will not reach an agreement. Opinions will vary, that is for sure. But one thing we will all agree upon is that everything Wikileaks has posted to date is authentic in terms of content.
From Snowden to Assange, we’ve heard all sorts of “opinions” on the subject of whistle-blowing and patriotism. But one thing no one has done so far is deny the published emails. The Hillary camp criticized the leaks, sure; spoke of Russian’s influence, sure; of having being hacked, sure; but one thing the Hillary camp never did was comment on the AUTHENTICITY of the emails—whether they’re fake or real; they never denied them or acknowledged them. They just kept banging on the same record about HOW Russia was trying to influence the elections by hacking their emails, but without directly responding about WHY those emails exist in the first place. And that should tell you a lot.
Point in case: In the Donna Brazile’s leak mentioned in point #2, she bloviated about never once having passed “any question”, but said absolutely nothing in terms of HOW the debate question was asked VERBATIM. I’ll repeat, verbatim! One more time: v-e-r-b-a-t-i-m. Magic?
Furthermore, this is the same Wikileaks which published emails from the Yahoo email account of Sarah Palin, the same Wikileaks which published over 400,000 classified military documents, some of which led to the exposure of how Bush and Cheney and Blair had prior knowledge that no WMD existed in Iraq, and some of the atrocities they committed there, and a thousand others, including the infamous abuse of Iraqi detainees by US guards at Abu Ghraib prison, all of which caused us (the Left) back then to applaud them for speaking the truth. But now that the content they’re posting does not serve in favor of our candidate, suddenly they’re an unreliable source posting fake stuff? Makes no sense, especially that they have over a decade’s worth of posting documents that have never been challenged. So the more the Clinton camp played the ‘Don’t listen to Wikileaks’ card, the more credibility people gave to Wikileaks.
Like I said above, whether it was ethical of Wikileaks to have posted the stuff in the first place is another matter altogether. I’ll leave that up to the objective interpretation of morality and what’s right or what’s wrong. My point isn’t about that; my point is about “content authenticity”, and so on that note, I truly believe Wikileaks dealt Hillary an undeniable major blow.