4 ms·

First, it's tragic and sad that Seth Rich's parents needed to publish an op-ed to discourage "reporters" from calling incessantly for anything, let alone harass

First, it's tragic and sad that Seth Rich's parents needed to publish an op-ed to discourage "reporters" from calling incessantly for anything, let alone harassing them over whether they think he may've sent a copy of some emails to someone. I have kids and if one of them was killed on the street, the only emails I'd care about would be those that implicate their killer. But that's how I read that article -- a plea to stop harassing them, and their official on-the-record statement which, yes, indicates they don't believe he would've been a source, so that people will reference that instead of continuing to harass them. As for "a mountain of evidence", the only substantive statement as to whether or not Rich actually provided the mails is that investigators apparently told them that they didn't find any evidence of communication with Wikileaks or Assange on any of his computers, but of course, if someone is providing documents to Wikileaks, the fact that they didn't leave evidence of that sitting around on their known workstations isn't really a shocker (nor would it be a shocker if there was evidence on his known workstations and DC police just don't know how to do computer forensics). I don't think his parents are really equipped to understand whether or not he would've had access to emails -- as most of us here know, most moderately-capable technical people can access virtually anything in a company's network. Remember that Podesta's Twitter was "hacked" during this whole affair because his password was trivially easy to guess; it's not like we're dealing with the NSA here (though note, Snowden was still able to exfiltrate the toppest-secret of the top-secret documents from there). I'm not really sure what you're looking for, but I guess I can backtrack if it'll make you feel better: it's entirely possible that Seth Rich wasn't the source of the emails and it's probably not prudent to say "Seth Rich provided the emails". I take back the definitive tone and will refrain from such certitude it in the future. The emails definitely could've come from somewhere else, possibly even actual Russian intelligence; ultimately, the source doesn't matter because nobody questions the authenticity of the documents. That said, it's entirely possible that Rich was a source and that Assange wasn't just heartlessly exploiting a convenient homicide. Personally, I put a lot more trust in Wikileaks and Assange particularly, whose hacker ethos is well-known and lifelong, has a long track record of verified and reliable journalism, and publicly suffered for the courage of his convictions by living in exile than I put in career politicians and media barons who are trying to distract from their ultra-embarrassing performances throughout the 2016 election cycle. The establishment was so certain that Trump would be crushed that they issued "Madam President" commemorative editions days ahead of the election. We can't pretend like they're not going to try to excuse that with something, no matter how ridiculous they have to get. No coverup or wide-ranging conspiracy is necessary -- just a handful of powerful people implicitly colluding to conjure a scapegoat out of widespread xenophobia and ignorance, which, I think we'd all agree, is nothing new when it comes to the worlds of politics and mass media.

seppin 7y ago
> But that's how I read that article > Personally, I put a lot more trust in Wikileaks and Assange Yes, that's exactly what I said. You are openly admitting to believing things either with no evidence, or significant evidence suggesting it's not true. You let your emotions guide your critical thinking. You believe these things because you want to, not because they make the more objective, logical sense. You "trust" people more, or something "sounds" right to you. And people here are claiming you aren't stupid for doing so, I disagree. I know guys making 500k that will talk your ear off about 9/11 and Seth Rich if you let them. They are idiots for doing so. You either make decisions on fact-based reality, or you don't.
- cookiecaper 7y ago
  No -- there is no known hard, undeniable fact-based reality on this, at least not as far as I know; if there is, I'd be happy to have someone show me. At the moment, there is no hard, undeniable proof either way -- there is the statement of some that they believe it's probably all driven by Russia and that Assange and Trump are Russian agents, and there's the statements from others that are more skeptical that it's necessarily all centered around Russia. There is going to be interpretation here. I'm willing to discuss the points where my interpretations come into play, and you're clearly not. The "proof" that you're insisting must be taken as inscrutable truth that Assange is a Russian agent and that the election's integrity was compromised is a) the cable TV network Russia Today broadcast a show that featured Assange; and b) an op-ed from Seth Rich's parents that states they'd really like it if you didn't imply that Rich was Assange's source, because they really don't think he would've been Assange's source. There's a reason I replied to not-you -- you're making yourself look silly here.
  - seppin 7y ago
    Ah, so you are repeating the talking point that unless intel agencies role out all their evidence of what they say, completely burning sources and methods for future use, their claims (no matter how logical and rational) aren't valid. Or (even worse) they are no better than the claims of Wikileaks or RT holding up conspiracies theories that don't even make sense. Evidence was presented behind closed doors, of which even the hardcore Trump loyalists didn't argue against. This is your proof, but again you aren't asking in good faith. No amount of "hard, undeniable fact-based reality" would ever convince people that already made up their mind. In summary, you are asking for something you know not to be possible (complete disclosure), to confirm something you already decided wasn't true. Snowden did that too. "If you have the evidence show it" know ing damn well they can't do that. And idiots lap it up. Your "We can't know either way" both sides arguments are actually worse than lying. It promotes the idea that no representative government is possible because no truth is possible. The Kremlin loves this idea, because that rational is how they stay in power. And you are promoting this uncertainty, it's unclear if you realize your useful idiot status or not. I promise you the enemies of democracy don't care.

seppin 7y ago

> But that's how I read that article > Personally, I put a lot more trust in Wikileaks and Assange Yes, that's exactly what I said. You are openly admitting to believing things either with no evidence, or significant evidence suggesting it's not true. You let your emotions guide your critical thinking. You believe these things because you want to, not because they make the more objective, logical sense. You "trust" people more, or something "sounds" right to you. And people here are claiming you aren't stupid for doing so, I disagree. I know guys making 500k that will talk your ear off about 9/11 and Seth Rich if you let them. They are idiots for doing so. You either make decisions on fact-based reality, or you don't.

cookiecaper 7y ago
No -- there is no known hard, undeniable fact-based reality on this, at least not as far as I know; if there is, I'd be happy to have someone show me. At the moment, there is no hard, undeniable proof either way -- there is the statement of some that they believe it's probably all driven by Russia and that Assange and Trump are Russian agents, and there's the statements from others that are more skeptical that it's necessarily all centered around Russia. There is going to be interpretation here. I'm willing to discuss the points where my interpretations come into play, and you're clearly not. The "proof" that you're insisting must be taken as inscrutable truth that Assange is a Russian agent and that the election's integrity was compromised is a) the cable TV network Russia Today broadcast a show that featured Assange; and b) an op-ed from Seth Rich's parents that states they'd really like it if you didn't imply that Rich was Assange's source, because they really don't think he would've been Assange's source. There's a reason I replied to not-you -- you're making yourself look silly here.
- seppin 7y ago
  Ah, so you are repeating the talking point that unless intel agencies role out all their evidence of what they say, completely burning sources and methods for future use, their claims (no matter how logical and rational) aren't valid. Or (even worse) they are no better than the claims of Wikileaks or RT holding up conspiracies theories that don't even make sense. Evidence was presented behind closed doors, of which even the hardcore Trump loyalists didn't argue against. This is your proof, but again you aren't asking in good faith. No amount of "hard, undeniable fact-based reality" would ever convince people that already made up their mind. In summary, you are asking for something you know not to be possible (complete disclosure), to confirm something you already decided wasn't true. Snowden did that too. "If you have the evidence show it" know ing damn well they can't do that. And idiots lap it up. Your "We can't know either way" both sides arguments are actually worse than lying. It promotes the idea that no representative government is possible because no truth is possible. The Kremlin loves this idea, because that rational is how they stay in power. And you are promoting this uncertainty, it's unclear if you realize your useful idiot status or not. I promise you the enemies of democracy don't care.