You are either incredibly naive, stupid, or both.
By pulling an Ad Hominem, you've forever cast your reliability into doubt! You're obviously a person who does nothing but smear people! I can't trust anything you tell me!
Oh wait, that's your logic. Huh. How bout that.
Once you have been caught falsifying a single document, for any reason whatsoever, everything you claim to be true can, should, and must be called into question.
Nope, that's the slippery slope fallacy. You should analyze motives and context to figure out whether a particular action is likely to be a lie instead of perjoratively declaring that an individual's satirical counter-smear ends all possibility of future truth. It was immature, but Assange was never some sort of bastion of perfection and holiness. He does, however, serve a useful function on occasion.
Now, if the reason for your organization is not as stated above, but is instead just to embarrass and smear people and organizations you don't like, then the false document makes perfect sense.
Have they done that on any other occasions? Because if not, you can't declare a trend of "embarrassing and smearing".
As for the DDOS attack, you don't actually need a botnot to make it appear like a DDOS attack, a simple 'misconfigured' firewall will do just nicely.
Still going on with that silly conspiracy theory, I see. The site is hosted with others by an organization in Sweden at Bahnhof datacenter. Why would the datacenter wish to harm its reputation by going along with such an action? Up-time is a very critical metric for attracting new customers.
Additionally, you haven't addressed by Wikileaks would harm the very site that hosts all of its donation information. How can they "donate now" if they can't get the relevant info? People have short attention spans, when the site comes back up it's not going to be as if there are thousands of people rushing all at once to donate to poor Wikileaks. This is the exact opposite tactic a person would take if they were looking for donations.