1. The main source for this is a guy who seems bitter that WikiLeaks didn't publish his story - while other places did. Wikileaks even responded to this (my emphasis):

   “As far as we recall these are already public,” WikiLeaks wrote at the time.

   “WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant. WikiLeaks has never rejected a submission due to its country of origin,”

   The article immediately goes on to say how the BBC and others reported on it, which would mean WikiLeaks did not need to. No one was reporting on Hillary's emails, however, in part because it was WikiLeaks' that got them. Furthermore, they said:

   We’re not doing anything until after the election unless its [sic] fast or election related,” WikiLeaks wrote. “We don’t have the resources.”

   Anything not connected to the election would be “diversionary,” WikiLeaks wrote.

   “WikiLeaks schedules publications to maximize readership and reader engagement,” WikiLeaks wrote in a Twitter message to FP. “During distracting media events such as the Olympics or a high profile election, unrelated publications are sometimes delayed until the distraction passes but never are rejected for this reason.”

   They were focusing on news relating to the US election on the run up to the election. If they'd had things to publish about Trump they would have, but Trump already makes so much controversial news about himself its nigh on impossible to come up with anything significant enough, especially that isn't already being covered elsewhere. But it wasn't really the time to be reporting on events in Russia.

2. I really don't like this article. It makes some pretty damning generalised claims, but when you go into the evidence of the actual transcripts they aren't as bad as they're made out to be. Eg, talking about trans things and Chelsea Manning was mostly about trying to keep the story about her imprisonment for releasing secrets, rather than have it devolve into trans issues. Most of it is Assange having an edgy take on topical issues.

   The anti-semite-esque stuff about the ((())), hot damn, he seems like an ass. But it's all very much skirting the bounds of anything explicitly wrong, beyond shit talking in a private chat room.

3. Timing the release to hurt Clinton and the Democrats fits well enough with Assange's efforts to target them, there is no suggestion of Russian involvement in timing of this. Russia most likely provided the material (albeit anonymously using WikiLeaks' drop box system), and could have made suggestions, but WikiLeaks more likely had the say in when it was published.

4. Most of this reads like them trying to tease information out of Donald Trump Jr. It's sleazy as hell, but not pro-Russia.

In general, it seems like you wouldn't naturally take the position of thinking WikiLeaks is pro-Russia without having that idea suggested to you first. You have to follow a pre-established narrative and framing of the evidence to reach that conclusion. Every time you read their publications and their responses to criticism they have a very reasoned reply as to why they published one thing and not something else. They didn't exist to publish everything in an equal manner, they existed to report on things that were a) not getting coverage, and b) relevant to their primarily English-speaking audience, and then later c) stood the best chance of getting the US off Assange's back.

It's definitely important to question his biases, particularly after he started associating with Russia and appearing on RT. However this must also be framed in the reality that the US was really trying to get Assange and WikiLeaks, making Russia just about the only place they could turn to. Furthermore, the US has been after Assange hard since 2010 or earlier, well before most of this happened.

Assange is definitely an ass, and obviously his focus in recent years has been on Clinton and the US - no surprise since they've been after him for so long. This, of course, aligned with Russia's interests in the 2016 election. Russia facilitated and exploited WikiLeaks, while Assange had apparently devolved and got a little more desperate after 4 years stuck in an Ecuadorian embassey. This does not mean he's pro-Russia, however, just that their interests aligned at one point. Either way, one thing you can say for certain is that WikiLeaks isn't as active as it once was, 13 years ago.