Agreed. Wikileaks may have been reputable at some point in the past but they're not trustworthy now. It's not so much the 'focus on Hillary' but their focus o

Agreed. Wikileaks may have been reputable at some point in the past but they're not trustworthy now. It's not so much the 'focus on Hillary' but their focus on being pro-Russian state. [1] The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has his own show on RT [2], which mean's he's essentially being paid by Russia's state propaganda media [3]. That, along with attacking the Panama papers leak for "going after Putin", and a string of other pro-Russia activity, means Wikileaks is not to be trusted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russian_influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi... [2] https://www.rt.com/tags/the-julian-assange-show/ https://www.rt.com/tags/the-julian-assange-show/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_claims_and_related_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_cla...