5 ms·

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.

by 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.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    > You are 100% sure that Seth Rich wasn't murdered in a conspiracy because Wikipedia said so? No. Why would anyone be 100% about this unless they were part of it? I definitely know what I think is most likely based on the evidence though. > 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. And "The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia" and "People who worked with Rich" and a "Rich family representative", all with citations. The very first sentence of that section does metion fact checking websites, such as Politifact.com, snopes.com and factcheck.org, but after it mentions (with two citations) "The conspiracy theories have been debunked by law enforcement". I can only conclude you are seeing what you want to see, since you're leaving out very compelling evidence that was not only mentioned first in the initial explanatory sentence, but also first below where items were discussed in detail. I think I've explained myself sufficiently, and I think your reply wasn't exactly formulated in a way conducive to productive discussion, so I think this will be my last comment on the topic here.

by jonfw 8y ago

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.
- kbenson 8y ago
  > You are 100% sure that Seth Rich wasn't murdered in a conspiracy because Wikipedia said so? No. Why would anyone be 100% about this unless they were part of it? I definitely know what I think is most likely based on the evidence though. > 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. And "The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia" and "People who worked with Rich" and a "Rich family representative", all with citations. The very first sentence of that section does metion fact checking websites, such as Politifact.com, snopes.com and factcheck.org, but after it mentions (with two citations) "The conspiracy theories have been debunked by law enforcement". I can only conclude you are seeing what you want to see, since you're leaving out very compelling evidence that was not only mentioned first in the initial explanatory sentence, but also first below where items were discussed in detail. I think I've explained myself sufficiently, and I think your reply wasn't exactly formulated in a way conducive to productive discussion, so I think this will be my last comment on the topic here.