There are 4 things he could have done: 1. Don't reveal any secrets. 2A Reveal secrets that harm candidate A. 2B Reveal secrets that harm candidate B. 3. Reveal all secrets that harm candidate A and candidate B.

I don't think anybody on HN argues that option 3 is preferable over all the other options. You seem to think option 1 is preferable to both options 2A and 2B. GP and I seem to think the opposite.

I can understand your argument that half the truth can be worse than no truth at all. But as there are very few sources for information like WikiLeaks I think in cases like this, half the truth might be all the public can get and it at least gives you a basic idea of what is happening when nobody is looking.