There's a difference between wild speculation and providing evidence to support one's claims. If you've been through my posts, you've seen plenty of this evidence.

If we temporarily go with the idea that something is wrong, then there are two scenarios: 1. Some portion (but not all) of Wikileaks has been compromised 2. Every aspect of Wikileaks has been compromised

Here are the problems with those scenarios vs. what we've seen happening recently. Scenario 1: Some (but not all) is compromised: * Wikileaks continued to release the 14th installment of the Podesta emails, well after the claims of "WL has been compromised" began. Would the agency that took them over still release those files? Would they even know how to? * Wikileaks is more than just Assange. If some (but not all) of wikileaks' team has been compromised, word would get out. They have numerous channels through which they can communicate and sound the alarm. Notably, I imagine they would turn to people like Glenn Greenwald (journalists who broke the Snowden story and who has the The Intercept at his disposal), Snowden himself, or others highly respected and capable in the community such as Jacob Applebaum or even Kim Dotcom. * It's just as likely that they don't want anyone to be absolutely certain where Assange is while the biggest leaks drop. I imagine his safety is of the utmost importance.

Scenario 2: All of Wikileaks is compromised: This is why they have (insurance files)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Insurance_files]. I admit we don't know the exact circumstances under which the key for these files would be released, but it would absolutely come before / at the point which Wikileaks became "totally compromised" and every voice associated with Wikileaks had been silenced. We would know when the keys were made public. They won't release them in a riddle or on /pol/, they will come from someone like the aforementioned people, and it will be very clear what they are for.