Yet we still see people pretending to be on the left defend the rapist.

But I'm lost here. What does this mean?

WikiLeaks has been nothing more than an anti American tool it's entire existence.

More than happy to post any information detrimental to America it can get it's hands on but unwilling to post anything about Russia.

Leading one to believe they are nothing more than a Russian tool pretending to be an outlet for whistle blowers.

Everybody here has been there, too!

You ask a good question. As I read it, THIS stood out:

"WikiLeaks declined to publish a wide-ranging trove of documents — at least 68 gigabytes of data — that came from inside the Russian Interior Ministry, according to partial chat logs reviewed by Foreign Policy. The logs, which were provided to FP, only included WikiLeaks’s side of the conversation."

Okay, I'm pretty doggone cynical about this bunch that cheated its way into OUR White House with plenty of help from Russia. I'm automatically predisposed to assume the worst, to assume they're up to something or they were sneaking something or they're lying about something or ... well, you know.

So the first thing that struck me here, since I too like to try to figure out "what does this mean?" - was "why did they decline to publish this? Was there dirt in there about trump that Wikileaks was anxious to keep secret? After all, their behavior certainly has never been consistent with that of an entity trying to help Hillary Clinton. If they declined to publish this stuff, was it REALLY because they knew it was a repeat of stuff already out there? I'd suspect Hillary haters at that level would be more inclined to release it ANYWAY, never mind that it was material already released. They'd figure most of the dumb-ass public already predisposed toward trump would just believe it anyway and assume it was simply more dirt on Hillary, even while knowing there was NOTHING new in there. Seems to me they wouldn't care about that.

These people are sneaky, slippery, deceitful, and conniving as all-get-out. I ALWAYS expect the worst of them, and they always prove me right.

The vindication part of the OP had me scratching my head a little, as I just didn't have enough history here I guess.

It makes sense that Assange might be a little hesitant to publish anti Russia stuff.

And thanks for the welcome

... on Assange's hatred of Hillary and how he has weaponized Wikileaks:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/julian-assange-a-man-without-a-country

Welcome to DU!

They had nothing other than that. Make no mistake.

K&R

You were totally correct.

at Wikileaks. (If he even cares about vetting the staff.) It's easy to imagine the FSB saw an opportunity early on to infiltrate the organization and are now using it to Putin's advantage.

There is also every reason to believe that Assange is actively assisting them. Any initial editorial stance of unbiased handling of all submitted material probably went out the window when the American government began coming down on Wikileaks for publishing classified material.

The smarmy fucker, Assange, is probably half-crazy from his self-inflicted sequestration and he dreams of nothing but revenge these days.

They don't hide it.

to their serious problems.

Then, they're clearly unacceptable as sources of information....

I mean, sure, we all want non-traditional news sources, but just not "these" sources.

We should hold out for the "right" alternative fact sources. It's not enough give them credibility because they are "not mainstream."

and therefore "unelectable," but eagerly gobble up anything these "alternative" information sources spurt out.