"Se Donald Trump ganhar as eleições de hoje, o Wikileaks sentir-se-á de alguma forma responsável?". Esta foi a última pergunta feita na conferência de imprensa com Juan Branco, ativista e consultor jurídico da equipa de advogados de Julian Assange, o líder do Wikileaks que há quatro anos se encontra detido na embaixada do Equador em Londres para não ser alvo dos mandados em seu nome emitidos pela justiça dos Estados Unidos e da Suécia.

Juan Branco respondeu que não, refutando que houvesse qualquer intenção de favorecer o candidato republicano com a divulgação dos e-mails de Hillary Clinton. Se a organização tivesse informação que considerasse relevante sobre Trump, faria o mesmo, acrescentou.

Juan Branco referiu-se à situação vivida por Julian Assange como "cada vez mais difícil" devido à pressão resultante das eleições americanas e, muito em concreto, da divulgação pela Wikileaks de e-mails que comprometiam a candidata democrata, Hillary Clinton. Na sequência da revelação desses documentos, o vice-presidente americano, John Kerry, pressionou o Equador no sentido de inibir o acesso de Assange à internet, o que veio efectivamente a acontecer . E essa é uma condição que lhe aumenta o isolamento e, por inerência, lhe torna a vida mais difícil. Mas em si mesmo, acrescentou Juan Branco, não trava nada, porque as publicações da organização não são feitas a partir da embaixada do Equador onde Assange se encontra recluso, mas sim de qualquer parte do mundo.

Horas depois desta conferência, a meio da tarde, os jornalistas presentes na Web Summit receberam no e-mail uma declaração de Julian Assange sobre as eleições americanas. "Nos últimos meses, o Wikileaks e eu a título pessoal temos estado sob enorme pressão no sentido de deixarmos de publicar o que a campanha de Clinton diz sobre si própria a si própria. Essa pressão vem de aliados da campanha, incluindo a administração Obama, e de outros liberais que estão ansiosos sobre quem será o próximo presidente".

Assange detalha em seguida os procedimentos e premissas que o Wikileaks segue enquanto organização: "publicamos informação que nos chega, se tiver importância política, diplomática, histórica ou ética e se for revelado em primeira mão". Segundo Assange, foi com base nestes critérios que publicaram a informação referente à campanha de Sanders e Clinton (DNC Leaks) e referentes à campanha de Clinton e da Fundação (Podesta E-mails).

Segue-se uma explicação sobre a ausência de publicação no Wikileaks sobre Donald Trump. "Não podemos publicar o que não temos. Até agora, não recebemos informação sobre a campanha de Donald Trump, ou de Jill Stein, ou de Gary Johnson ...".

No final da conferência de Juan Branco, uma das jornalistas presentes, não resistiu a dizer-lhe "obrigada". Tímido e recatado, o advogado acenou com a cabeça. Em português, teria dito, "de nada".

Declaração de Julian Assange enviada aos jornalistas presentes na Web Summit:

In recent months, WikiLeaks and I personally have come under enormous pressure to stop publishing what the Clinton campaign says about itself to itself. That pressure has come from the campaign's allies, including the Obama administration, and from liberals who are anxious about who will be elected US President.

On the eve of the election, it is important to restate why we have
published what we have.

The right to receive and impart true information is the guiding principle of WikiLeaks – an organization that has a staff and organizational mission far beyond myself. Our organization defends the public's right to be informed.

This is why, irrespective of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election, the real victor is the US public which is better informed as a result of our work.

The US public has thoroughly engaged with WikiLeaks' election related publications which number more than one hundred thousand documents. Millions of Americans have poured over the leaks and passed on their citations to each other and to us. It is an open model of journalism that gatekeepers are uncomfortable with, but which is perfectly harmonious with the First Amendment.

We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish. We had information that fit our editorial criteria which related to the Sanders and Clinton campaign (DNC Leaks) and the Clinton political campaign and Foundation (Podesta Emails). No-one disputes the public importance of these publications. It would be unconscionable for WikiLeaks to withhold such an archive from the public during an election.

At the same time, we cannot publish what we do not have. To date, we have not received information on Donald Trump's campaign, or Jill Stein's campaign, or Gary Johnson's campaign or any of the other candidates that fufills our stated editorial criteria. As a result of publishing Clinton's cables and indexing her emails we are seen as domain experts on Clinton archives. So it is natural that Clinton sources come to us.

We publish as fast as our resources will allow and as fast as the public can absorb it.

That is our commitment to ourselves, to our sources, and to the public.

This is not due to a personal desire to influence the outcome of the election. The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers. I spoke at the launch of the campaign for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because her platform addresses the need to protect them. This is an issue that is close to my heart because of the Obama administration's inhuman and degrading treatment of one of our alleged sources, Chelsea Manning. But WikiLeaks publications are not an attempt to get Jill Stein elected or to take revenge over Ms Manning's treatment either.

Publishing is what we do. To withhold the publication of such information until after the election would have been to favour one of the candidates above the public's right to know.

This is after all what happened when the New York Times withheld evidence of illegal mass surveillance of the US population for a year until after the 2004 election, denying the public a critical understanding of the incumbent president George W Bush, which probably secured his reelection. The current editor of the New York Times has distanced himself from that decision and rightly so.

The US public defends free speech more passionately, but the First Amendment only truly lives through its repeated exercise. The First Amendment explicitly prevents the executive from attempting to restrict anyone's ability to speak and publish freely. The First Amendment does not privilege old media, with its corporate advertisers and dependencies on incumbent power factions, over WikiLeaks' model of scientific journalism or an individual's decision to inform their friends on social media. The First Amendment unapologetically nurtures the democratization of knowledge. With the Internet, it has reached its full potential.

Yet, some weeks ago, in a tactic reminiscent of Senator McCarthy and the red scare, Wikileaks, Green Party candidate Stein, Glenn Greenwald and Clinton's main opponent were painted with a broad, red brush. The Clinton campaign, when they were not spreading obvious untruths, pointed to unnamed sources or to speculative and vague statements from the intelligence community to suggest a nefarious allegiance with Russia. The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications--because none exists.

In the end, those who have attempted to malign our groundbreaking work over the past four months seek to inhibit public understanding perhaps because it is embarrassing to them – a reason for censorship the First Amendment cannot tolerate. Only unsuccessfully do they try to claim that our publications are inaccurate.

WikiLeaks' decade-long pristine record for authentication remains. Our key publications this round have even been proven through the cryptographic signatures of the companies they passed through, such as Google. It is not every day you can mathematically prove that your publications are perfect but this day is one of them.

We have endured intense criticism, primarily from Clinton supporters, for our publications. Many long-term supporters have been frustrated because we have not addressed this criticism in a systematic way or responded to a number of false narratives about Wikileaks’ motivation or sources. Ultimately, however, if WL reacted to every false claim, we would have to divert resources from our primary work.

WikiLeaks, like all publishers, is ultimately accountable to its funders. Those funders are you. Our resources are entirely made up of contributions from the public and our book sales. This allows us to be principled, independent and free in a way no other influential media organization is. But it also means that we do not have the resources of CNN, MSNBC or the Clinton campaign to constantly rebuff criticism.

Yet if the press obeys considerations above informing the public, we are no longer talking about a free press, and we are no longer talking about an informed public.

Wikileaks remains committed to publishing information that informs the public, even if many, especially those in power, would prefer not to see it. WikiLeaks must publish. It must publish and be damned.