2 ms·

> So what you're saying is that he hasn't named the real leaker and hasn't made any firm claims on who the real leaker is? I believe the specific portion most

> So what you're saying is that he hasn't named the real leaker and hasn't made any firm claims on who the real leaker is? I believe the specific portion most people would find troubling in that article is: “We're not saying that Seth Rich's death necessarily is connected to our publications – that's something that needs to be established,” said Assange. “But if there is any question about a source of WikiLeaks being threatened, then people can be assured that this organization will go after anyone who may have been involved in some kind of attempt to coerce or possibly, in this kill a potential source.” > Assange is not responsible for the conspiracy theories that other people generate from his information. Well, that depends. There are definitely ways I could purposefully word information that would give people a strong impression I was trying to communicate something without saying it. Do I believe Assange made any factual statements here that the staffer was a wikileaks source and he was killed because of the leak? No. Do I believe he was trying to insinuate himself and Wikileaks into a narrative where he knew they had nothing to do with it, possibly wasting resources that could have gone towards finding the actual killer, and lending credence to a narrative that we now know (to my knowledge) was untrue? Yes. That's not illegal. It does affect how people perceive him and his endeavors though.

jonfw 8y ago
For the sake of anybody else reading this, I edited my previous comment before you responded, but at the time you saw my comment your first quote was accurate. My fault for that disjointed communication, I thought I edited it quickly enough. In that quote he has specifically said "We're not saying that Seth Rich's death neccessarily is connected to our publications." I see nothing wrong with entertaining a conspiracy theory if you aren't lying about having evidence you may not have. I'd like to hear how you know that Assange knew that they had nothing to do with it? Because your argument seems to hinge on that idea.
- kbenson 8y ago
  > I'd like to hear how you know that Assange knew that they had nothing to do with it? Because your argument seems to hinge on that idea. I'm not sure who "they" are in this question. I assume Assange knows who his sources are, and as someone who claims to be a journalist and run a journalistic enterprise, he would not accuse people of something he had no evidence of. At this point, there's plenty of investigations as to whether he was a source, many of which are shown on the relevant portion of his Wikipedia page.[1] Either all the evidence so far is incorrect, or Assange knew he wasn't a source, or Assange didn't know whether he was or was not a source, and in either case, anyone that claims to be a journalist or working towards exposing the truth should not be making statements such as he did, or at least that's the opinion of many people. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Debunking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Debunking
  - burfog 8y ago
    Wikipedia is particularly untrustworthy for political topics. Political parties and even nations are employing teams of people to work their way up the Wikipedia ranks in a fight for control. Assange would know the source. Assange also made a promise to not reveal sources, making no exception for death. Giving suggestive hints would be one reasonable way to deal with the awkwardness of the situation.
    - belltaco 8y ago
      So you're saying Assange is implying that Seth Rich is the leaker, and that he is indeed the leaker?
      - burfog 8y ago
        It seems to be so. Assange and his mother both hinted at it. One interview Assange did is particularly notable; he practically said the leaker was Seth Rich and then backed off a bit. It was like he was struggling with his promise to not reveal sources. Seth Rich had the means to leak, being an IT person just like Snowden was. Seth Rich had the motive to leak, being a very upset Bernie supporter. In one of John Podesta's emails, there were some very ominous words about making an example of leakers.
        belltaco 8y ago
        There is no evidence that Seth Rich was a Bernie supporter at all, forget about being an upset one. Him being an IT person means nothing because did not have access to all DNC emails. Snowden had high level access.
  - jonfw 8y ago
    You are 100% sure that Seth Rich wasn't murdered in a conspiracy because Wikipedia said so? I'm not saying that he was murdered by the DNC because I haven't seen enough evidence that supports that theory. But to act like the theory has been conclusively disproven because of a wikipedia article that cites the Washington Post, Snopes, and Politifact is rather naive.

jonfw 8y ago

For the sake of anybody else reading this, I edited my previous comment before you responded, but at the time you saw my comment your first quote was accurate. My fault for that disjointed communication, I thought I edited it quickly enough. In that quote he has specifically said "We're not saying that Seth Rich's death neccessarily is connected to our publications." I see nothing wrong with entertaining a conspiracy theory if you aren't lying about having evidence you may not have. I'd like to hear how you know that Assange knew that they had nothing to do with it? Because your argument seems to hinge on that idea.

kbenson 8y ago
> I'd like to hear how you know that Assange knew that they had nothing to do with it? Because your argument seems to hinge on that idea. I'm not sure who "they" are in this question. I assume Assange knows who his sources are, and as someone who claims to be a journalist and run a journalistic enterprise, he would not accuse people of something he had no evidence of. At this point, there's plenty of investigations as to whether he was a source, many of which are shown on the relevant portion of his Wikipedia page.[1] Either all the evidence so far is incorrect, or Assange knew he wasn't a source, or Assange didn't know whether he was or was not a source, and in either case, anyone that claims to be a journalist or working towards exposing the truth should not be making statements such as he did, or at least that's the opinion of many people. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Debunking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Debunking
- burfog 8y ago
  Wikipedia is particularly untrustworthy for political topics. Political parties and even nations are employing teams of people to work their way up the Wikipedia ranks in a fight for control. Assange would know the source. Assange also made a promise to not reveal sources, making no exception for death. Giving suggestive hints would be one reasonable way to deal with the awkwardness of the situation.
  - belltaco 8y ago
    So you're saying Assange is implying that Seth Rich is the leaker, and that he is indeed the leaker?
    - burfog 8y ago
      It seems to be so. Assange and his mother both hinted at it. One interview Assange did is particularly notable; he practically said the leaker was Seth Rich and then backed off a bit. It was like he was struggling with his promise to not reveal sources. Seth Rich had the means to leak, being an IT person just like Snowden was. Seth Rich had the motive to leak, being a very upset Bernie supporter. In one of John Podesta's emails, there were some very ominous words about making an example of leakers.
      - belltaco 8y ago
        There is no evidence that Seth Rich was a Bernie supporter at all, forget about being an upset one. Him being an IT person means nothing because did not have access to all DNC emails. Snowden had high level access.
- jonfw 8y ago
  You are 100% sure that Seth Rich wasn't murdered in a conspiracy because Wikipedia said so? I'm not saying that he was murdered by the DNC because I haven't seen enough evidence that supports that theory. But to act like the theory has been conclusively disproven because of a wikipedia article that cites the Washington Post, Snopes, and Politifact is rather naive.