WikiLeaks emerged as a major player in the U.S. election.

The pro-transparency online activist group released tens of thousands of emails that exposed our rigged political system.

And on Election Day, WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, released a surprising statement about their role in the election.

For months, Democrats and other establishment Republicans have blasted WikiLeaks as a Russian front group out to elect Donald Trump.

Anti-Trump forces in America launched these attacks because the emails WikiLeaks released were obtained from the Democrat National Committee and Clinton Campaign Chairman, John Podesta.

The emails showed how national party staff colluded with the Clinton campaign to rig the primary against Bernie Sanders.

And emails from Podesta’s account demonstrated how so-called “journalists” were really Democrat party operatives, who worked with the Clintons to slant their coverage against Republicans.

Assange answered the charges of being pro-Trump in his statement.

He also reflected on the impact WikiLeaks had on the U.S. election.

Zero Hedge reports he wrote the following:

“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.”

Liberals were outraged that WikiLeaks exposed their corrupt dealings.

While she was a CNN contributor, current Democrat National Committee Chairwoman, Donna Brazil, leaked debate questions to the Clinton campaign.

The emails also exposed how the elites in Washington band together to continue their way of life by planning out administration jobs and mapping out how they will work to keep outsiders at bay.

No matter what happens in the election, WikiLeaks is here to stay.

They will continue to be a thorn in the side of the establishment because of their corrupt dealings kept secret from the American people.