Well, keep a few things in mind here. The title of your post is already confrontational. Most people comes here to discuss the content of the leaks themselves--and this content has never been proven to be false or altered in any way.
When your post implicitly takes the stance that Wikileaks has lost credibility, there's a lot to unpack there and at face value it is completely inaccurate.
I don't question that Assange's interests and actions are at odds with Hillary's campaign. But his reaction when asked if he favors Hillary / Trump was "You're asking me, do I prefer cholera or gonorrhea?" That's still not proof that he's taken sides.
The basis for this post's removal isn't because the discussion you're getting at isn't appropriate for this sub. It's that the presentation of this post is burdened by too many assumptions and misrepresents the problem.
I would welcome a conversation along the lines of "Ethics in Journalism and Wikileaks' Publication Method". I think that's an excellent topic and well worth having--and phrasing it that way communicates that you aren't challenging the authenticity or the credibility of leaks. Rather, you're looking for a meta-conversation about the process: whistleblowing, hacking, redacting (or not), publishing, and advocating/promoting.
Here are some articles worth adding to that discussion if you'd like to start it: