Those voting for Hillary Clinton, defending Clinton and supporting Clinton without reading the information reported by WikiLeaks are intellectually no different than those who criticize climate science without ever having read the science. In short, if you defend Clinton and ignore WikiLeaks, you have something in common with Sarah Palin. Let that sink in for a moment. Finished processing that? Now process this — if the journalists responsible for reporting on Watergate were labeled “Russian sympathizers,” charged by the media as “attempting to influence an election,” and banned from travel or communication access, how would history judge the event? This is exactly what has happened to Julian Assange, who has done more for journalism than any of these corporate-owned, brand-named media products have done this election cycle. Either you support access to information or you have a problem with an informed public. Which side are you on?

Roger Yates, Aurora

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.