5 ms·

Wikileaks, and Assange specifically, keep implying Seth Rich leaked them DNC emails to attention whore on his death. Really disgusting behavior.

by parfe 10y ago

leaveyou 10y ago
I wonder what was Seth Rich's job at DNC ? Technically, could he have leaked those emails ? How can we be sure Assange is dishonest when he implies Seth Rich was the source ? Is there solid proof that Rich was really the victim of a failed robbery and not revenge disguised as robbery ?
- parfe 10y ago
  >"Whistle-blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks," Assange said. "As a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington." >When the interviewer interjected that the murder may have been a robbery, Assange pushed back. >"No," he said. "There’s no finding. So… I’m suggesting that our sources take risks." >When pressed as to whether Rich was, in fact, the leaker, Assange stated that the organization does not reveal its sources. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-m... Assange's transparent conflation of the murder of Seth Rich with "our sources" is obvious. He won't outright lie and claim Rich as a source, but he's nakedly prodding you to form your own conspiracy theory.
  - iqisracist 10y ago
    except he is dead now.
  - DominikR 10y ago
    Oh believe me he will leak the proof for it too. He will slowly destroy the Democrats by constantly leaking proof of their outright criminal conduct. And Trump doesn't strike me as a man that will allow the Clintons to get away from this. He will definitely persecute them to the fullest extent after he has won the elections, he even said himself that he believes Hillary should go to prison.
    - ethanbond 10y ago
      You meant "prosecute." Err, wait... Maybe not.
    - guelo 10y ago
      Why would I believe you when you have no proof and Assange has no proof. If Assange has proof he should release it, otherwise he's just injecting more conspiracy theories into an election that is already poisoned by them.
  - imron 10y ago
    > Assange's transparent conflation of the murder of Seth Rich with "our sources" is obvious. Exactly. It would be careless in the extreme to just accidentally out a source like this, and for all his faults, Assange is far more intelligent and careful than that.
    - skylan_q 10y ago
      Outing a source that's already dead and everyone who wants anyone connected to him controlled/dead? No, I don't think there's any added risk at this point.
      - imron 10y ago
        Not in this case, but if it turns out Seth Rich was the source, then I imagine future sources will be wary about leaking to an organisation who carelessly gives away their identities in media interviews. Also compare it to Assange's previous statements about the importance of protecting the anonymity of their sources and that creating ambiguity and uncertainty is one way of doing that.
        skylan_q 10y ago
        Identity was given away after he's been killed. That is to say, he was already outed. There is no danger anymore as it's been realized and the people out for blood already got it.
        imron 10y ago
        When I said 'careless in the extreme' in my earlier post, I meant that it undermines the entire credibility that Wikileaks is able to protect the anonymity of its sources. If it loses that credibility, then future leakers will be dissuaded from leaking out of fear that they too will accidentally be outed in a moment of carelessness, and Wikileaks is doomed. I don't think Assange would risk the reputation of Wikileaks like that, and think that the death of Seth Rich is unfortunately being used as means of subterfuge.
- eli 10y ago
  > Is there solid proof that Rich was really the victim of a failed robbery and not revenge disguised as robbery ? What would "solid proof" look like? Someone confessing? What if that person were paid off? This is the problem with conspiracy theories: they are impossible to disprove to believers. Any evidence against them just serves to prove how deep the conspiracy goes.
  - leaveyou 10y ago
    I used "solid proof" as a placeholder for "more facts, not opinions, indicating that". Some facts indicate it was not a robbery: "They took his life for literally no reason. They didn't finish robbing him, they just took his life,". Others leave robbery as a possibility: "signs of struggle, bruised hands and knees", "walking at 4:20 a.m while talking to the phone". http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Shot-Killed-in-Northwest-DC-386316391.html http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Shot-Killed-in-N...
    - Avshalom 10y ago
      Well there's no solid proof it wasn't David Icke's lizard people shooting him for knowing to much either. Or a jilted lover, or one of Trump's Second Amendment People, or that he shot himself and then threw the gun down a storm drain before bleeding out. You've already jumped to "guy getting shot in DC because that shit happens sometimes" as merely a possibility that hasn't been completely ruled out.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    I think that's a bit quick to accuse someone of conspiracy theories. At the moment, Seth Rich's death consists of a nighttime shooting, no killer caught, and nothing stolen. Police are treating it as a "presumed attempted robbery". If some local criminal is found with the murder weapon and no alibi, I think that would satisfy a lot of people that it was a robbery gone wrong. Yes, there will be conspiracy theorists, but we're not really at "impossible to disprove" yet. There's still plenty of room for ordinary discussion - it's still an open investigation to the police even. I don't believe the 'revenge' story at all, but I don't think people are crazy for asking "Hey, what was Rich's DNC job? And is there evidence for the robbery story?"
- elicash 10y ago
  He was working on a GOTV project. No, he wouldn't have those emails. And yes, there's evidence of a struggle, so it certainly sounds like there was a mugging, but he put up a fight and was killed -- and so after killing him, the criminal took off without the wallet.
- yaskyj 10y ago
  Snopes' take: http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/ http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/
skylan_q 10y ago
No, it has nothing to do with the fact that the DNC is corrupt and willing to kill people to rig elections. That's not the problem here. The problem is that attention has been brought to this murder which highlights the corruption. We can't let anyone know that the DNC is corrupt!

Wikileaks, and Assange specifically, keep implying Seth Rich leaked them DNC emails to attention whore on his death. Really disgusting behavior.

by parfe 10y ago

Wikileaks, and Assange specifically, keep implying Seth Rich leaked them DNC emails to attention whore on his death. Really disgusting behavior.

leaveyou 10y ago

I wonder what was Seth Rich's job at DNC ? Technically, could he have leaked those emails ? How can we be sure Assange is dishonest when he implies Seth Rich was the source ? Is there solid proof that Rich was really the victim of a failed robbery and not revenge disguised as robbery ?

parfe 10y ago
>"Whistle-blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks," Assange said. "As a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington." >When the interviewer interjected that the murder may have been a robbery, Assange pushed back. >"No," he said. "There’s no finding. So… I’m suggesting that our sources take risks." >When pressed as to whether Rich was, in fact, the leaker, Assange stated that the organization does not reveal its sources. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-m... Assange's transparent conflation of the murder of Seth Rich with "our sources" is obvious. He won't outright lie and claim Rich as a source, but he's nakedly prodding you to form your own conspiracy theory.
- iqisracist 10y ago
  except he is dead now.
- DominikR 10y ago
  Oh believe me he will leak the proof for it too. He will slowly destroy the Democrats by constantly leaking proof of their outright criminal conduct. And Trump doesn't strike me as a man that will allow the Clintons to get away from this. He will definitely persecute them to the fullest extent after he has won the elections, he even said himself that he believes Hillary should go to prison.
  - ethanbond 10y ago
    You meant "prosecute." Err, wait... Maybe not.
  - guelo 10y ago
    Why would I believe you when you have no proof and Assange has no proof. If Assange has proof he should release it, otherwise he's just injecting more conspiracy theories into an election that is already poisoned by them.
- imron 10y ago
  > Assange's transparent conflation of the murder of Seth Rich with "our sources" is obvious. Exactly. It would be careless in the extreme to just accidentally out a source like this, and for all his faults, Assange is far more intelligent and careful than that.
  - skylan_q 10y ago
    Outing a source that's already dead and everyone who wants anyone connected to him controlled/dead? No, I don't think there's any added risk at this point.
    - imron 10y ago
      Not in this case, but if it turns out Seth Rich was the source, then I imagine future sources will be wary about leaking to an organisation who carelessly gives away their identities in media interviews. Also compare it to Assange's previous statements about the importance of protecting the anonymity of their sources and that creating ambiguity and uncertainty is one way of doing that.
      - skylan_q 10y ago
        Identity was given away after he's been killed. That is to say, he was already outed. There is no danger anymore as it's been realized and the people out for blood already got it.
        imron 10y ago
        When I said 'careless in the extreme' in my earlier post, I meant that it undermines the entire credibility that Wikileaks is able to protect the anonymity of its sources. If it loses that credibility, then future leakers will be dissuaded from leaking out of fear that they too will accidentally be outed in a moment of carelessness, and Wikileaks is doomed. I don't think Assange would risk the reputation of Wikileaks like that, and think that the death of Seth Rich is unfortunately being used as means of subterfuge.
eli 10y ago
> Is there solid proof that Rich was really the victim of a failed robbery and not revenge disguised as robbery ? What would "solid proof" look like? Someone confessing? What if that person were paid off? This is the problem with conspiracy theories: they are impossible to disprove to believers. Any evidence against them just serves to prove how deep the conspiracy goes.
- leaveyou 10y ago
  I used "solid proof" as a placeholder for "more facts, not opinions, indicating that". Some facts indicate it was not a robbery: "They took his life for literally no reason. They didn't finish robbing him, they just took his life,". Others leave robbery as a possibility: "signs of struggle, bruised hands and knees", "walking at 4:20 a.m while talking to the phone". http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Shot-Killed-in-Northwest-DC-386316391.html http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Shot-Killed-in-N...
  - Avshalom 10y ago
    Well there's no solid proof it wasn't David Icke's lizard people shooting him for knowing to much either. Or a jilted lover, or one of Trump's Second Amendment People, or that he shot himself and then threw the gun down a storm drain before bleeding out. You've already jumped to "guy getting shot in DC because that shit happens sometimes" as merely a possibility that hasn't been completely ruled out.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  I think that's a bit quick to accuse someone of conspiracy theories. At the moment, Seth Rich's death consists of a nighttime shooting, no killer caught, and nothing stolen. Police are treating it as a "presumed attempted robbery". If some local criminal is found with the murder weapon and no alibi, I think that would satisfy a lot of people that it was a robbery gone wrong. Yes, there will be conspiracy theorists, but we're not really at "impossible to disprove" yet. There's still plenty of room for ordinary discussion - it's still an open investigation to the police even. I don't believe the 'revenge' story at all, but I don't think people are crazy for asking "Hey, what was Rich's DNC job? And is there evidence for the robbery story?"
elicash 10y ago
He was working on a GOTV project. No, he wouldn't have those emails. And yes, there's evidence of a struggle, so it certainly sounds like there was a mugging, but he put up a fight and was killed -- and so after killing him, the criminal took off without the wallet.
yaskyj 10y ago
Snopes' take: http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/ http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/

skylan_q 10y ago

No, it has nothing to do with the fact that the DNC is corrupt and willing to kill people to rig elections. That's not the problem here. The problem is that attention has been brought to this murder which highlights the corruption. We can't let anyone know that the DNC is corrupt!