The only people going "BUT HIS EMAILS" seem to be American Alt-Nazis.
And basically this was a case of someone breaking into a house, going through the owners mail, taking the stolen stuff to public and screaming "look at this! Maybe he has done something bad! Go through his letters and see! This is actually about ethics in gaming journalism!"
And then random Redditors who also post on Teh_Donnie go "I for one support freedom of speech and neutrality of press. It would be better if someone had hacke Le PEn as well but since we got this whistleblower now why don't we look at his emails and see if he did something wrong. Just playing the devil's advocate. Don't really get why you people seem so upset about this."
Yeah about the "BUT HIS EMAILS!" stuff. Turns out Macron was one step ahead and planted fake emails for the Russian hackers to find. Basically made Wikileaks out to be idiots is what he did.
Ironbite-hopefully this starts a trend to not trusting Wikileaks.
WikiLeaks has only ever leaked one thing that I can think of (the fake Macron emails that he planted in advance) that was inaccurate. So I still trust them largely, I have no clue why people think they're in with Russia. If it's just because they've leaked shit about Clinton than thats dumb, because I follow their twitter feed and they've taken to criticism of moves by Trump too, they're not on any one side other than "criticize the people in power and leak shit about them".
Seriously, read this. It is long and very informative.
To summarize, in the summer of 2015, according to Crowdstrike, cyber espionage groups closely aligned with Russian Military Intelligence, known as Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, hacked the DNC, the DCCC, and John Podesta. This was a large-scale attack on these entities over the period of many months; it could not have been carried out by a few people. The information was then sifted through and organized so that it could be released to maximize damage to Secretary Clinton.
The entity claiming responsibility for the hacks was Guccifer 2.0. Guccifer 2.0 claimed that he lived in Romania, but evidence began to pile that he was in Russia and spoke little Romania. Additionally, evidence piled up that "he" was likely a group of people. "He" promised to publish the hacked documents on Wikileaks, and Wikileaks was happy to comply.
Now, Julian Assange claims to be an innocent recipient of the hacks and vehemently denies that the leaks were timed in such a way to hurt Clinton. That does not mesh with the facts. Shortly before the Democratic National Convention, Wikileaks released Emails from the primaries and negative of Bernie. In the last thirty days leading up to the general election, Wikileaks published 1,800-3,000 each day, dominating the news coverage. If transparency is the desired end, you release all the emails at once; if you want to hurt political opponents, you time it out to keep the story fresh. In the days following the election, Julian Assange alluded to wikileaks popularity in the final weeks of the 2016 election as evidence that the voters made an educated and informed decision, despite the fact he only released electronic documents hacked from Secretary Clinton.
And then
this happened in France. Again, Fancy Bear was caught with his paw in the cookie jar. Again, Wikileaks published these documents. Again, only one candidate had the documents hacked and leaked. Again, the information was published at a time to do maximum damage (in the final hours before the French "Black Out" to catch a narrative and dominate conversations over the weekend). And again, the candidate that benefited from the link was a far-right nationalist that favored Putin, and whom Putin favored.
Newsflash to no one: Wikileaks is the mouthpiece of Russia to air dirty laundry about people Putin doesn't like.