You may have noticed that Wikileaks is very anti-Clinton. They do not endorse Trump in any way, but they are constantly monitoring the Democratic Party and any fact or rumor they can find about Clinton. And why is this? Simple: They are anti system, and Clinton represents this system better than anyone, for better or worse. But is being anti system a good thing per se? Obviously no.
For example, let's take the case of Julian Assange, the interesting founder of Wikileaks. There are some points about him that I don't like at all:
Putin: It does not matter in which side you are on: Putin is a corrupt semi-dictator. I've know Russian personally, and they tell me about an authoritarian and corrupt government. My own country does deals with Russia, and believe me, they ARE corrupt.
Ecuador, Bolivia and the other "21st century socialists": These countries are struggling with economic, political and social problems generated by the populist governments. As Russia, authorities in these countries constantly look for partners in a world that's leaving them behind, and they find friend in any kind of outcasts, no matter if they are good or bad.
Assange and Snowden do not criticize Russia
An important information source such as Wikileaks should at least have some equilibrium when investigating different countries. My country had a lot of problems because of the US, but Russia is by no means better, and I know it because my country has close relations with Russia and there are always problems with bribes and stuff.
In the logic of "our enemy's enemy is our friend", Assange and Snowden have been clearly trying to undermine Clinton's reliability. And this is like a general attack on the establishment. But what about Russia? Here are some words about Russia by Assange himself:
“Every man and his dog is criticizing Russia,” he said. “It’s a bit boring, isn’t it?”