It's easy to trust Wikileaks. The only standard they have to adhere to is to not invent, adulterate, or filter material. That's a pretty low standard. By contrast, professional journalists seek out and independently confirm leaks with other insiders. They associate, summarize, and contextualize. Wikileaks doesn't do this--they can't do this--because their sources are anonymous, and because Wikileaks has foresworn taking upon itself the responsibility and concomitant risk (of error, of bias) of doing those other things.
That means Wikileaks is in no better position than anyone else. Their value add, beyond serving as an initial depot for leaks, is thin. And that's fine. Similarly, there's little to criticize. (I've seen claims on HN that Assange rejected some purported Trump leaks, but I didn't check on that myself.)
I absolutely think Wikileaks is useful and essential. But if the outlet you trust the most is Wikileaks, you'll never really know or understanding anything. It's like saying the only source of information you can trust is the Internet. What does that even mean? How can you possibly think you can consume all of that data unassisted?
While you claim Wikileaks is the most trustworthy, I suspect that most of your opinions (whatever they are) were principally informed by other journalists reviewing, criticizing, and editorializing on what Wikileaks publishes. You're flying blind if you don't realize that.
For example, you claim that CNN is lying about the legality of possessing classified documents. How did you form that opinion? All on your own? Are you a lawyer specializing in the confluence of national security and free speech law?
The person spreading falsehood here is Sarah Hannon. She said,
CNN has even suggested, wrongly, that readers may have legal
troubles if they download documents from our site.
The reality--which you can confirm with a few moments of Googling--is that the government interprets the relevant statues such that if you hold a security clearance, then reading classified material without authorization, no matter where it came from, is considered illegal. You have an affirmative duty not to read it under their interpretation. That rule makes more sense than you'd think because you don't want people claiming that they "stumbled" onto classified information. Criminal law in the U.S. requires intention, and without the law requiring that you affirmatively avoid classified information, it's much easier to get out of a charge on a technicality. It also incentivizes people who do stumble onto classified information to notify authorities.
Furthermore, acquiring a security clearance is something you choose to do, not something forced upon you, which means typical Free Speech defenses are far less likely to help you. And that presumes that it is legal for everyone else to possess _any_ classified information that has been published via Wikileaks. (Which is, at best, highly debatable. And I definitely cannot see SCOTUS creating a blanket, bright-line rule like that without leaving a caveat for unforeseen circumstances.)
And on top of that, Hannon even acknowledges that CNN hedged with "may have legal troubles". Clearly they're less comfortable making such absolute claims than Hannon.
Now, we can agree or disagree with the law or the government's interpretation. I'm not about to defend any aspect of how the U.S. government classifies and manages information. (Which is to say, I think much of the system is ethically indefensible.) But facts are far tricker things than you'd think. Not acknowledging that is very dangerous.