Slashdot Mirror
Assange Implies Murdered DNC Staffer Was WikiLeaks' Source (washingtonpost.com)
Okian Warrior quotes a report from Fox News: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange implied in an interview that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer was the source of a trove of damaging emails the rogue website posted just days before the party's convention. Speaking to Dutch television program Nieuswsuur Tuesday after earlier announcing a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of Seth Rich's killer, Assange said the July 10 murder of Rich in Northwest Washington was an example of the risk leakers undertake. The Washington Post provides some details of the murder in its report: "Rich was shot twice in the back as he walked to his townhouse about 4:20 a.m. Nothing was taken, but police have said attempted robbery is their leading theory for a motive, noting a spike in robberies in the neighborhood in the preceding weeks. WikiLeaks released the trove of emails later that month, on July 22. Rich, 27, had worked for the DNC for two years and helped develop a computer program to make it easier for people to find polling places on Election Day. After his death, the DNC's then-chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), attended a vigil for Rich in front of his home, and Hillary Clinton, before she was nominated in her run for president, evoked his name during a speech in which she advocated for limiting the availability of guns."
There's a list, it's over 50 people.
Does anybody really doubt that this man was assassinated by the DNC/Clintons/etc.? Days after a huge scandal? Double tapped in the back and nothing taken? Does that sound like robbery to you?
Says who, exactly??? (Please be precise)
The list of dead that one finds in the wake of the Clintons is as long as the number of people who have been ripped off by Trump. Vote independent or seal your fate. Greater good > lesser evil.
Hillary Clinton, before she was nominated in her run for president, evoked his name during a speech in which she advocated for limiting the availability of guns
When guns are outlawed, only Clinton "persuaders" will have guns. So you better vote correctly or else...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The suspected foreign government who hacked the systems covered their tracks... If you really want to dream up a conspiracy theory that one is much more plausible. Just sayin'
Leak is not a hack mr Russian shill
>never leaks about Russia
>never leaks about the GOP
>cant shut up about the democrats
Everyone in this comment section believes it's the clintons because that's what they want to believe; confirmation bias.
No one has posted any proof, because there is none.
But by all means go on with your alex jones level kook ass bullshit, you frothing RWNJ freaks!
It's just another totally random coincidence that everybody who knows anything about the Clintons ends up dead!
TOTAL. COINCIDENCE.
Besides, the police have already declared that it was a robbery even though the man's keys and wallet weren't taken. Case closed!
In the 90's people who make excuses for the Clintons [I'm looking at you Snopes] suggested that anyone who knows so many people is bound to have some with questionable suicides. However I don't recall a similar list appearing either during the Bush II or Obama years. Just the Clintons. I guess we'll add that to the long list of amazing coincidences that continually surround the Clintons. For those too young to remember what I'm talking about, there is a long list of Clinton associates dying under questionable circumstances. The most notable was probably Vince Foster but there were others.
I fucking love it.
Left wing hacks post "debunking" by other left wing hacks.
Problem solved!
Snopes' evidence that it wasn't a politically motivated hit is that "the victim was still breathing when police arrived and he would have said it was an assassination if it really was."
That conclusion is so fucking desperate that it's funny.
Isn't it funny that Snopes managed to debunk this particular murder before a police report was available? In other words, Snopes says in effect that the allegations can't be true even though the facts haven't been established. Isn't that the opposite of proving something?
Unless Assange provides evidence, his claims have to be taken with a grain of salt. He's made it clear over the last several months that he specifically wants to take Clinton down. He's gone from being a nominally non-partisan proponent of open-information to being a proclaimed partisan player in an active election. If he has proof the Seth Rich leaked the DNC emails, then he should put that proof out there, otherwise he's just engaging in conspiracy level BS and in the process further hurting Wikileaks' already divisive reputation. (Note: I can understand why he's doing it, though. I'm sure Assange believes that if the US is actually out to get him, using Sweden as a proxy, then he has less to fear under Trump than Clinton.)
I wonder if you take some random individual (especially someone whose profession is to interact with people and groups of people) and map all the people they were ever associated with and find a.... gasp!.... number of individuals who met with an untimely demise.
Evidence more valuable than feels. Has Assange given in to the tactics of those he claims to have the high moral ground over?
Wow, so many Russian troll farm posters around these parts with silly conspiracy theories. Putin must really really hate Hillary Clinton.
1. Julian Assange will out a source if it will get him press attention, or
2. The dead guy was not the actual source and the DNC would have no motive to take retribution, so Julian Assange will lie about a source if it will get him press attention.
present facts?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and went to a shit school. I know of several people who committed suicide. My brother, who was in a band (read:drugs,sex,rock n roll) knows even more. It's more common than people like to acknowledge (sorta like unwanted children).
/. troll.
But keep pushin' that nonsense. If nothing else it's a great
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The Snopes story confirms that he was shot for essentially no reason. We might know more if we had info from his girlfriend or the ambulance team, but nobody has made any public statements. I understand that it's way too early to go around pinning it on somebody, but it's hard to say it's "debunked" when basically no investigation has actually been done yet.
This isn't whistle blowing anymore. For one thing a whistle blower _never_ reveals a source. Even if they're dead the sources family might be targeted. He's after Hilary. I can't say he doesn't have good reason ( she's part of the administration that arranged the false rape allegations ). I'm just not sure what he'll get out of this. Trump (and more importantly Mike Pence who's going to be the real president) aren't exactly favorable to Assange.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Who would be more likely to tell the truth? Hillary or Julian.
I know I would trust Julian any day over Hillary. She even lies about lying after being caught, on tape, under oath, confirmed by the FBI, to be lying.
If the Republicans had picked anyone other than the complete basket case they now have to float as their candidate for POTUS, poor Julian might have been able to wreak his terrible revenge for his perceived martyrdom. As it is, nobody is even listening now.
No shit.
The Republican Party is so fucking incompetent that, in the year Democrats nominate the absolute worst possible candidate, they go one better. Actually, one worse.
And they wound up in this pickle because the Republican Party powers-that-be don't stand for ANYTHING other than getting reelected - thus enticing Republican primary voters to pick the most NON "Washington Republican" they could find.
Democrats get control of both the House and the Senate - and they hammer through Obamacare, using every trick in the book to get it done. Democrat voters love that.
Republicans get control of both the House and Senate, and they approve "only half (until next time around!)" of the increased government spending Democrats want. That doesn't go over well with Republican voters. Reverse everything, and Democrats would pass one bill to fund things like welfare, social security, and government pension payments, along with the entire military and intelligence agencies - and also gut Obamacare. Then DARE the President to veto it.
Democrat lawmakers fight for what they and their constituents believe.
Washington Republicans? Not at all. They "play fight".
Snopes would have "debunked" all the stories about the NSA spying on us a few years ago.
The news about another nation having the skills to get into a computer network, stay undetected, able to remove bulk plain text data but then have details about methods used got discovered was strange. ..." .... directly out of Gamma reporting. "
Why would such a method be caught now with a such weak tool set when every other part of the data extraction was undiscoverable?
The early hint to that was it was not another nation:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07...
""Perhaps one day the source or sources will step forward and that might be an interesting moment some people may have egg on their faces."
This seems more like a classic Watergate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... insider walk out than any nation with amazing skills to get into a network that then lacked any ability cover its way out of a US network.
Nsa Whistleblower: Agency Has All Of Clinton’s Deleted Emails (31 Jul 2016)
http://www.breitbart.com/jerus...
".... surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry over
"
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
1. Julian Assange will out a source if it will get him press attention, or
2. The dead guy was not the actual source and the DNC would have no motive to take retribution, so Julian Assange will lie about a source if it will get him press attention.
3. If you murder a Wikileaks source, Julian Assange will go after you with everything he's got, releasing the information at the worst possible moment, in the most damaging possible way, and offer rewards for the capture of the murderer.
In other words, it's a message to those who would murder wikileaks informants.
And in other news, Assange has stated that there are more Hillary Clinton revelations to come. The biggest stash yet, he says.
He has stated that he has proof that Clinton had a hand in arming ISIS.
I'm running out of popcorn - need to go out and buy some more!
Those 2nd amendment people surely are busy.
We have corruption on an unprecedented, massive, global scale. We have lies, cover-ups, and influence peddling. And anyone who's seen Clinton Cash knows we also have the raping of entire third world countries to add to the list. Now we have whistleblowers/leakers winding up dead on their way to FBI. But by all means vote for the bitch. She's already several orders of magnitude worse than Bush and Nixon combined, and hasn't even had "real power" yet - I'm sure it will work out fine. Because Trump. Yeah, that's the ticket. Because Trump.
Snopes did debunk government surveillance of the internet on several occasions in the past.
Snopes is no better or worse than any random forum.
Believe me, if the old lady gets elected, you need to be ready for four or, heaven forbid, eight more years of this stuff. The rattle of skeletons in the Clinton closet will not be going away.
The Right Wing sort of thrives in an opposition status. And the anti-Globalism movement isn't going to be tamped back into obedience. Large segments of the Left and the Right can't stand Hillary Clinton and who she represents*.
(*not the American public)
Sadly, it seems Snopes is squandering away any credibility they once had. One might as well consult a website like Salon.com for factual non-biased information.
He implies something and then won't confirm or deny it? Cmon.. how stupid does he think people are? This is scam artist 101 stuff here. The question is why are there so many supporters still for this guy after he's hyped up sensitive data leaks and made wild overblown speculations.Assange is a for profit tabloid CEO hiding behind a guise of social justice and I'm sure his response is .. I'm just giving the people what they want.
Yeah.. sure you are. You're getting rich without having to have a real job, that's what you're doing.
Assange has shown multiple times he is not responsible enough to be in the role he is and it makes me think Wikileaks itself is also just some kind of for profit scam. I don't believe anything out of his mouth anymore, before I was just skeptical. Now I know he is a for profit liar.
Until now, I have always found Snopes a reliable source of information. After having read what they had to say about Seth Rich, I do not understand how they can patently claim a "FALSE" status to this rumor. They offer no evidence at all to the contrary. Their claim that just because he was young, was part of the DNC since just 2014, and "only" developed a system to help voters find voting locations, means that he could not have been the source of the leak or killed to cover it up. If he had access to their systems to some degree, and was a developer capable of implementing a site of this scale for national consumption, then he most certainly could have obtained the emails if that particular server was interconnected in some way to the systems he had access to. That part actually fits to me, because that is where most leaks come from - not from a head honcho (as if the only person capable in Snope's eyes of causing such a leak was the main guy over the DNC email servers themselves). Usually it is someone ancillary on the fringes that has just enough access (or the ability to get the more privileged access relatively easily due to security vulnerabilities) that is responsible for these kinds of leaks. Look at Snowden.
Their arguments are really illogical. For example:
According to Joel Rich, Seth was on the phone with his girlfriend when the shooting started, and Rich indicated to his girlfriend that he was nearly home and not headed out for an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday:
Rich said Seth was talking to his girlfriend on the phone outside when the incident happened.
“Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about, and then she heard some noise, he said he had to call her back — I don't know when that conversation ended but at 4:18 two shots were fired,” said Rich.
What about that proves he wasn't set up with a fake FBI meeting? Maybe he went to the meeting location, no one was there, and he was going home and was ambushed? And this... "Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about" that doesn't mean he was headed home. He could have simply been reassuring her that he would be home soon, and didn't literally mean he was going home that instant and was just about there.
And then there's the bit where the debunker said "an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday". What?? If it wasn't a *real* FBI meeting, as the conspiracy theory states, then why not in the middle of the night? Maybe the FBI doesn't really do business in the middle of the night on the weekend (although they probably do), but most people would certainly think cloak and dagger affairs like that do happen at those times. So if he was tricked into meeting, what does that have to do with the plausibility of whether or not the FBI really does meet people at 4 AM on a Saturday? The goal would have been to get him alone so he could be killed without witnesses.
I don't believe this theory is true, and I don't believe it was disproved. However to see Snopes claiming in black and white that it was debunked, with no actual evidence to back it up, has really knocked my respect for them down several notches.
If there's something I missed that they presented as actual evidence that the theory is false, then please tell, because I didn't see it.
Better known as 318230.
I see several comments where people ask something like "What's Assange's game plan?" His game plan should be obvious to anyone. His plan is to say anything it takes to get his name in the news so he can somehow dream that he is still relevant and play the martyr.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
How about not using the tired 20+ year old excuse that has been used by the media to smear people on all matters Clinton?
Besides, there's plenty of motive for the Clintons to signal their usual suspects to take the guy (never mind the rest) out.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Isn't it funny that Snopes managed to debunk this particular murder before a police report was available?
They make a good point when they state:
Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting. Had he any information about his murder having been a set-up, he likely would have conveyed such to attending officer before he died of his wounds shortly thereafter.
Words such as "rational" and "murders", when speaking in defense of the Clinton bloodline, do not belong together.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
How can anyone verify "nothing was taken"? The guy whose stuff it was is dead.
Suppose hypothetically Mr. Rich owned a hula-dancer lamp that was his favorite, and the robber took it?
Mr. Rich is no longer around to say, "Hey, where's my favorite hula dancer lamp?"
Table-ized A.I.
Interestingly these types of so called presidential hit-lists go back to at least Eisenhower. I remember getting them on mimeographed sheets in the early 1960's.
I don't know how they spread before that, but I've read scholarly works about them.
In addition to the Seth Rich article being written a bit too soon, the Snopes writers have a lot of explaining to do about their own bias.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
N/T
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I see several comments where people ask something like "What's Assange's game plan?" His game plan should be obvious to anyone. His plan is to say anything it takes to get his name in the news so he can somehow dream that he is still relevant and play the martyr.
And doing a pretty good job, it seems.
CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS Justice: All Republicans are Guilty until destroyed.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Blame the media, which has largely remained in DNC control for decades.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I'm ... going to need a slightly more reputable source to believe it.
Then believe whatever lies that the conventional media feed you on the Clinton matter.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Writers seem to have been prophetic - another Seth, Grayson this time, was leaking Frank Underwood's secrets to his party competitors. They even kinda look alike. Will Seth's character get killed next season as well?
How much are you being paid or influenced to Correct The Record?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting.
Well duh, I imagine most shooting victims are alive and breathing when they are shot!
In all seriousness though, he was shot in the back. He likely didn't know anything about the person who shot him, no matter what their motive was, if they didn't approach him after the shooting to rob him.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
couldn't possibly be Assange's grudge and potential motive to cozy up with Russia for some sweet, sweet, Snoden-style asylum motivating him to wait to lie and disclose his "source" in an attempt to undermine Clinton. Clearly it was some sort of conspiracy despite a complete lack of evidence
Here it is:
"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."
He's strongly implying that the deceased man gave him information and that he was killed in retaliation. It's impossible for any reasonable person to conclude anything else when the quote is taken in context. Saying anything else is just being dishonest.
The same is true for Donald's comment about Second Amendment Solutions. He was suggesting (in jest?) someone should assassinate Hilary if she wins. If you're not American and lack the proper context then you might have missed that. But there isn't a man or woman alive in the United States who didn't get his message loud and clear.
The press is reporting exactly what both Assange and Donald said and meant. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable but it doesn't change facts. Hell, it makes me _very_ uncomfortable. There is no way in hell either man should be saying things like this for a variety of reasons. Donald's just a blow hard and an a-hole. I still don't what Assange is up to. Maybe he's given up on making the world a better place and wants it to burn...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Snopes is, of course, infallible. Particularly when they support left-wing points of views.
Well he could probably tell if the person just ran or tried to enter his house or something. You're right though, it also could have been a hitman and not Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Hard to describe this situation succinctly, but I'll take a shot at it...
Assange has some good principles, but he is more fanatical about them than most people. The combination wound up putting him in a leadership position, but it was not because he was well balanced and an all-around nice fellow. Actually, I think he was a little bit crazy from the git-go, almost surely including a touch of paranoia, but subsequent events have proven that his paranoia was well justified. He has real enemies, powerful enemies, and they would like to put him away and they have been putting lots of pressure on him for many years. He has effectively been imprisoned for a mix of lèse majesté and kicking rich bastards in the wallet, and they still want to lock him up in much nastier and darker places. Forever.
It is not surprising that he is getting nuttier. In this case, I think he is just being opportunistic and exploiting a kind of birthday paradox. In any group of 75 randomly selected people, the odds are 99.9% that two of them share a birthday, and in any large organization with lots of employees (such as the DNC), there's a high chance that at least a few of them will die suspiciously. If this guy was an important source for Assange, then producing the proof might be useful as a prod to the investigators, because it would establish a possible motive, but just hinting around is only destroying Assange's own credibility. He's looking like a revenge-seeking rumormonger, which must be making his real enemies exceedingly happy.
In a sense, the sad story of Assange is serving his enemies simply by deterrence. His life has been ruined, and there are no signs of improvement going forward. Revealing state secrets is a bad idea, and trying to help other people who want to reveal state secrets may be even worse, depending on how you perceive the situation that Assange has been suspended in. Not as bad as getting waterboarded, but certainly not good. The same thing applies to revealing non-state secrets involving powerful people, but I'm not sure how much Assange has been involved that kind of thing.
Was or is Assange also a sexual deviant? I don't think it matters. Plenty of worse deviants out there, and that is not why they are after Assange. Let's not confuse him with Roger Ailes or Bill Cosby, eh?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Nice post Hilary - that will convince everyone.
Also a real traitor, and a serial rapist. Don't ignore his criminal tendencies because you imagine a fantasy motivation for one of his actions.
Readers, it's worth contemplating how fucked up it must be to believe that the whole world is conspiring against you, except Donald Trump and Milo Yiannopoulos. I don't really know how it's possible to live like that. Every day, every day, thinking, "Nothing is real. People who I've trusted for years have now turned against me and they're coming to get me."
As a wise, wise man once said, "Sad!"
You are welcome on my lawn.
They claim nothing of monetary value was taken. (Think wallet, watches, jewelry etc.)
I do wonder if he might've walked out of office with a USB stick that morning that it went missing by the time they found him...
"Blame the media" is just the way partisans blame voters. It's just plain laziness.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
We need to hack the money trail from the Clinton Foundation to the State Department to the State Department Asset who was activated for the kill and confirm Barak Hussein Obama as the signature on the order.
An IT type with a girlfriend? obviously a plant to keep watch on him!
Cute how DWS showed up at his home for "sympathy".
I heard somewhere Trump had him murdered and made to look like it was the Clintons, just to discredit Cheatin' Hillary! ;)
He was dead at the time the officer, whose name was being withheld, arrived.
Hillary Clinton, before she was nominated in her run for president, evoked his name during a speech in which she advocated for limiting the availability of guns.
Wow, not only was she able to kill the source of the leak to set an example of what happens when you cross the Clintons, she was ALSO able to use it to promote stronger gun-control! That's really getting two for the price of one.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
professional assassin is not high in statistical probability.
Once bitten, twice shy as it were.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Which means what exactly? If Trump delivers Clinton Congress, or at least the Senate, and a majority of Americans, no matter how reluctantly, support her bid, then what you have is the usual cranks making the usual noises and achieving what they usually achieve, which is nothing at all except a spot on 5 o'clock news for the latest shit-and-squat on the front lawn of city hall, or yet another tired Breitbart article or Limbaugh invective.
If you want to actually change something, you have to win elections. One-fingered saluting yourself into irrelevance is not only counterproductive, but possibly a sign of intense stupidity.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Assange IS this story, and his name comes up here surprisingly seldom. Here's a game plan for you: Trump is an extreme case of conspiracy theorist; it wasn't just birtherism, he believes in a lot of them. A Clinton-murder conspiracy has got to be catnip to him right now, desperate as he is. So Assange is floating one: and if Trump bits, Assange plays him a bit, leads him on, his statements get more extreme...and Assange pulls out the rug.
Clearly, if or when I'm shot in the back and dying, I know I want to relay who my attacker was, or that it might have been a grand conspiracy.
Rather than say, 'oh god, what have I done with my life. So many things I'll miss, loved ones..... places yet seen..... ...'
Nope. Definitely what Snopes implies. Certainly! /s
Government surveillance of the internet was widely known before Snopes even existed.
Please see "spook.el". It was added to emacs in 1988 with the express purpose of distracting the NSA while they monitor email traffic.
The media is to blame when they were at the beck and call of the DNC, especially when it came to killing stories.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
It's been almost 24 hours before the Donald has said anything insane and he is due. This is perfect for his famously ambiguous suggestions: "She's a very powerful women, and bad things happen when people cross her, that poor DNC staffer got shot twice in the back."
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
When it comes to the Clintons, you might as well be in the middle of a field of okapi where the crocodiles are claiming they're eating horse meat.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Try refuting him instead of smearing the messenger.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
What a load of shit. Assange is in the bag with the Russians (he does have a show on RT).
The man is a creep and has lost all respectability/credibility.
This is pure loon conspiracy garbage.
It's one thing to actually Not Do It, it's another when lots of people in very compromising positions get killed in coincidental ways.
That's not a Republican thing, or a Democrat thing.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Apparently no-suspect murders, no-loss "robberies", and multishot "suicides" of politically linked officials are too commonplace for some Slashdotters.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
and I'd argue Bush / Cheney either, but several of Trumps staffers have been quietly telling folks that it's OK if Trump wins because his VP will run the show. John Kasich spilled the beans when he turned Trump down for Veep (he's hoping to run in 2020 against Hilary). Basically a vote for Trump is a vote for Pence. If you like Pence, go for it, but don't kid yourself that you're gonna get a Trump presidency in anything but name.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Maybe the DNC can add Assange to that list soon.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...
46137
Thank you! I remember that statement and was like, WTF?!
*Breathing*, not sitting up and cooperating fully with the investigators. People just want to roll their eyes and believe that there aren't any conspiracies. I'm pretty sure that the disbelief makes it easier to sleep... and vote.
1. Julian Assange will out a source if it will get him press attention, or
2. The dead guy was not the actual source and the DNC would have no motive to take retribution, so Julian Assange will lie about a source if it will get him press attention.
3. If you murder a Wikileaks source, Julian Assange will go after you with everything he's got, releasing the information at the worst possible moment, in the most damaging possible way, and offer rewards for the capture of the murderer.
4. The guy was not the leak, but using an actual robbery makes everyone believe the leak is gone.
Hint: the whistelblower DGAF if he's already dead, slick. Next excuse to throw Assange under the bus?
Come listen to a story 'bout a man named Bill.
A poor mountaineer who really liked to kill.
Then one day when he was shootin' at some dude
Up from the ground came a bubblin' crude.
A goil, that is. Black souled. Texas Teeth.
Well the first thing you know old Bill's a millionaire
Kin folk said, "Bill, move away from there".
They said Washington is the place you ought to be
So he packed up his things, along with Hillary
Drowning pools, gloomy bars... banjo solo...
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The killer will get jack rubyed so it's best to go on the run and maybe even seek asylum. But this person may be long dead.
Oh fuck straight off. Do you defend a fascist demagogue proto hitler running for POTUS? I'm guessing you do.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Try not being an neo-nazi.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
At this point, the Seth Rich case is just an unsolved murder.
However, to people who say that this is highly implausible, I'd say: why do you think that? Even disregarding general military action, Hillary Clinton (like other top-level officials) clearly has approved the killing of dozens of people, knowing full well that innocent family members and children would likely get killed as well. Obviously, Clinton, like some other politicians, believes that killing for a higher purpose is justified. It is hardly a stretch to assume that she would order someone killed in order to prevent political chaos at home (like, for example, a Trump election).
I'm not sure Trump has what it takes to order the direct killing of another human being; Hillary has already demonstrated that she does. Whether you consider that a good thing in a presidential candidate you have to decide for yourself.
that Assange makes a claim championed by conspiracy theorists that his source was a murdered DNC worker and provides no proof. It may be true, but this guy will do anything to attack Clinton.
Now, if he can prove the aide was the source, I will bite. Until then, it's National Enquirer fodder.
Until now, I have always found Snopes a reliable source of information. After having read what they had to say about Seth Rich, I do not understand how they can patently claim a "FALSE" status to this rumor. They offer no evidence at all to the contrary.
The rumour cites a bunch of facts, almost none of which have any corroboration (ie what happened to this captured hit team) and many of which actually contradict known facts.
I might as well say he was assassinated by a Donald Trump operative to throw the DNC's voter outreach operation into disarray, there's just as much evidence to back that rumour as this one. Every indication is this is just something cooked up on the internet, since the rumour presents it as fairly established fact I don't mind them marking it false.
The only thing that gives me pause is Assange, though Assange has been getting weirdly trollish the past few months and his statements are far from a "I think this was our source who got killed". Far more likely it's some combination of wanting to be part of the news cycle and wanting to distract from the common theory that his source is the Russian government.
I stole this Sig
The Taliban were a creation of the Pakistani intelligence agency and Pakistan has long used them to keep Afghanistan unorganized and neutered as a threat.
You are conflating the Reagan era bi-partisan (Republicans AND Democrats) support for the various Afghan rebel groups who were resisting the Russian invasion. None of those groups were the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, or ISIL etc, though it's quite likely that some of the people the west trained and armed in the '80s went on to join Bin Laden's outfit in the '90s.
Let's all make at least a tiny effort to be historically accurate on this stuff.
Either claim the guy or don't, but don't imply. It is the kind of statement someone would make who was trying to get people to think he has more power/influence would make. I mean if the guy really is your source you do one of two things:
1) Keep shut up about it. You decide that you want to protect his family, friends, information, whatever. So you say nothing and deny everything. You try to convince your adversaries that this guy was just another guy, someone you had no involvement with.
2) Publicly and unequivocally state the guy was your source. You decide it is more important that it now be known. Maybe you feel there is no threat to anyone else, maybe you want to honor his work, maybe you feel it will help bring the people who killed him to justice. Whatever the case you make it very clear that yes, this person was your source and probably even identify some of the information that was theirs.
There is just no way that some kind of half-assed insinuation helps you if he really was a source. It doesn't do any good in terms of verification, but still could be used by an adversary as enough of a conformation to then go after others.
However it makes a lot of sense if he wasn't a source and you are a full of shit attention whore. You get to make news, get people thinking "well it could have been his guy!" but then if it comes out he wasn't, you can deny everything saying "Well I never claimed he was a source, just that his murder was for unknown reasons!"
To me, it seems that Assanage will say pretty much anything these days to get himself in the spotlight and hence this wishywashy crap. He needs to knock it off. If the guy was a source, come out and claim it in unequivocal terms, or just say nothing. Don't insinuate.
(1) any street thug who kills a person to rob him will take his wallet, phone and/or watch, all of which are reported by the police to have NOT been taken.
(2) any smart killer who wants to kill for some non-robbery reason is likely to take the wallet, phone, etc to make it LOOK like a typical street crime, UNLESS there's good some reason not to try to throw the police off.....
.....which leads to an interesting question:
In killing the guy and specifically NOT taking any of his valuables, was a message being sent? A message like: "this was NOT a robbery!" perhaps?
It's interesting that we're now being told that they victim was just a low level guy with no access to anything...... but of course there've been a couple other "low level" guys lately named Snowden and Manning who sorta put the lie to that argument.
The Democrats, via leaked e-mails, proved that they did indeed rig their process so that they got the nominee their Wall Street bosses wanted no matter what the people wanted. The Republicans, very publicly, proved that thier system for selecting a nominee is not rigged. The wall Street bosses wanted the Republican nominee to be Jeb Bush, with possible fallbacks to MarcoRubio or John Kasich. The Republican voters selected Trump instead to overturn the Washington DC crony monstrocity, and the elites are totally freaked-out by it with many of them fleeing to Hillary who they know is a servant of their paymasters.
attacking the Bush administration and dumping American government secrets then?
-or-
is your outrage now completely phony, unprincipled, and inconsistent simply because you like Hillary or hate Trump?
Well he could probably tell if the person just ran or tried to enter his house or something. You're right though, it also could have been a hitman and not Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
It was Bernie, secret agent of the Lizard people, working for Trump, at the behest of Lizard Queen Wasserman Ssssssssschlutzssssssss who the shot, via tongue piercing like in Farscape.
Duh!
whenever I run away from someone pointing a gun at me, I get shot in the front, or at least an arrow to the knee.
ah, yes, {crickets}.
So a liberal on MSNBC claims he heard somebody say Trump asked these questions, and now it's the Gospel Truth among idiots on the left.
It seems to never even occur to you that the anonymous source may be a DNC staffer who is lying. It also never seems to occur to you that even if Trump did ask such a question it could have been rhetorical to see how the so-called "expert" with whom he may have been speaking reacted and whether he had the facts to go along with his positions.
This idea that Trump is an idiot re nukes spread like wildfire through leftist echo chambers nearly as fast as the universally-believed-by-leftists idea that Palin said she could see Russia from her house (something Palin never said - Tina Fey said it on SNL while impersonating Palin and idiots who think comedy shows are REAL fell for it).
The killer will get jack rubyed...
But who jack ruby's the jack rubys?
Is it rubys all the way down?
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
All this finger pointing at politicians, nonsense, just nonsense. Politicians are just puppets on a string.
We should do a slashdot poll with 2 options.
Question "Was Seth Rich kill by a mugger or by the government wanting to send a message to any more would be wikileakers?"
Answers "Yes" & "No". (ok, maybe "cowboy neal did it", too)
It's the US security bureaucrat's who will be behind this.
The faceless men in the shadows who love the power they wield and fear the light maybe turn on them by one of their minions.
If it was ANYBODY else that you were given the same insanely huge list of "suicides" all connected to this one person? You'd say they were either a serial killer or obviously mobbed up....yet with the Clintons people just keep making excuses, why?
If you have one person die under mysterious circumstances that is terrible, 3 could be a coincidence, but over SIXTY DEAD, all either victims of "suicide" or "botched robberies" where nothing was taken and they are shot execution style? I'm sorry but anybody who doesn't accept the fact that the Clintons have racked up a body count is frankly delusional at this point. If I had to guess I'd say the Clintons got real chummy with the spooks running dope for the Contras out of Mena in the 70s and 80s and still have their numbers on speed dial.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Someone had to say this, and thank you very much for making the first reasonable comment under this article.
Assange was exposed as a tool of Russian intelligence services pretty much long ago, not to mention his work for the Russian propaganda network RT (and one can assume he worked there not for free).
So far, what we know about the leaks is that the latest timestamp in the leaked e-mails more or less corresponds to the moment when CrowdStrike purged Russian APTs from the DNC network (May 25 and May 29 corresp). Wikileaks published the dump on June 22, this poor guy was murdered on July 10.
Now we have to suppress our critical thinking and just take a Russian tool who has worked on Russian propaganda network for his word?
Where is your proof Mr. Assange? Please give us any evidence that Seth Rich was your source.
Thanks
Snopes is just another part of the Tribalist US public discourse now.
The whole internet is infected by it.
Can we have tech news please?
This isn't even news at all. Assange didn't make an outright allegation, and the police don't seem to take him seriously.
I want to read about the cool new NAND in development or the security implications of quantum computing, not get sideswiped by unsubstantiated conspiracy claims and political diatribes.
There are plenty of pro and con sites for every political issue. That ground is covered very thoroughly without Slashdot sticking its nose into it.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Face it he's a rapist in that cant leave an embassy do to the possibility of being extradited to face charges.
Secondly he's not even a US citizen, he is however a threat to US national security.
I put him in the same league as Putin, an outsider that wants to see the US crumble
no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
Snopes kind of convinced me that it sure was a lot of lot of lot of coincidence. You know, when this many people slated to testify or involved in investigations related to a mobster - no one thinks it is coincidence.
Paranoid much?
There have been a number of web sites which detailed crimes, cronyism, corruption and assassination conspiracies of the Clintons which have gone dark over the past year.
Then the cops are either lying or idiots. Most are not stupid. ( the stupid ones end up dead themselves )
Forget political agencies and party unity.. .It should really scare every American that a person with this much political power is getting people murdered AND wants to be president.
Really People?.. You have one analyst on staff who gets killed. Suddenly he's the guy who got Gigs of Exchange email to the Wikileaks? Come on, lets stop with the fantasy. He wasn't an I.T. guy, he wasn't a tech, he wasn't an administrator. We all know how Exchange and email systems work. We know how the stuff is stored, accessed, backed up. Just because the guy worked in the office doesn't give him access to any of that. I would expect the people of SlashDot to know better than anyone.
Obviously it would be "nuts" for either Hillary or the DNC to take revenge. So neither happened. Obviously it would be stupid for Hillary to have knowingly used a personal email server for government emails, so she couldn't have done that, either. Nor the erasures, of course -- that would be criminal if it were done by just anyone. I mean, Nixon was impeached and dragged through televised, bipartisan coals for erasing 13 minutes of PERSONAL tape recordings, and Hillary would have known that and she isn't stupid. So she obviously didn't do any such things on purpose! Now making all that money the first (and apparently ONLY) time she decided to try her hand and futures trading....that was just "luck". Anyway, once we rule out tinfoil-hat possibilities for all the strange, strange events which have surrounded Hillary the only thing a reasonable person can conclude is that Hillary is "SPECIAL" in God's eyes. That means you either have to vote for her because God wants you to. Or avoid her like the plague because God wants you to. I mean - it was quite a coincidence for all these awful things to "happen" to poor Hillary. But God could have kept them secret -- but instead he arranged for you to find out about them. So it's in your hands now. God has spoken.
Not sure what happened, but I have specific distrust for what gets modded up lately on this site.
OK, some of the people here on Slashdot think that Hillary Clinton is a multiple murderer. Without (ahem!) a smoking gun. However, you're bright guys. Two goals are posited for the murders: defend the reputations of the Clintons and make sure that Hillary is elected President. So let's make a different list, a list of people who would be the best targets to ensure those goals. Now, Monica Lewinsky would have been on that list, back before that whole scandal broke out, but she's still going. I propose that Donald Trump himself should be on the list. Maybe we could even take out his vice-presidential running mate at the same time. It's certainly possible. Think of how most of the South Korean cabinet got wiped out: The Rangoon Bombing.
With a Dead Pool created, we can make predictions. If those people start dropping off, maybe we've got something there. But I doubt it. I gave up on this kind of evidence way back when, despite all the evidence, I found out that Paul McCartney isn't dead.
-Gareth
Assange never said or implied that it was Hillary. If you find it so hard to believe that the CIA might possibly off someone who is involved in influencing our elections for foreign interests you are a fuckwit.
Here's the list: (scroll down to "THE CLINTON BODY-COUNT")
http://www.whatreallyhappened....
Going to testify against the mob is probably a safer bet.
You forgot to say that in your Fox News-bot voice.
Don't worry, I got your six.
"Oh fuck straight off. Do you defend a fascist demagogue proto hitler running for POTUS? I'm guessing you do."
That is such a good description of the nominee of both sides of the ruling party (R and D) that I don't even know which you mean.
Has the bar for crazy really dropped so low? So let me get this straight. Someone gets murdered in DC, and it's suddenly Clinton's fault?
Let me clue you in. You clearly don't live in this area. There are no "nice" areas that will prevent you from getting shot. Last week we had a case where four people jumped an old lady, shot her in the arm, then stole her shoes. Not her purse. Not her money. Just her shoes.
I've heard worse. Apparently a gang initiation involvers going to the DC Marine barracks and taking pot shots at the guards. Due to the outside area being residential and CONUS, the Marine's ROE doesn't allow the guards to shoot back.
Have you ever SERIOUSLY paid attantion to the man's utterances???
In congress he was a flake at the left fronge of the GOP which is itself barely to the right (the GOP congress is RHETORICALLY right, but never actually achieves anything remotely right-wing). Joe was one of those guys always trying to move the GOP left.
There's a reason why Joe is the token Republican at Messed-up NBC.
Joe was not truly a Trump supporter; he was in desperate need of the ratings he was getting having Trump on his loser show which, being the least-left show on a network catering to the left, needed to boost to keep the paychecks flowing. Once he saw Trump as a threat to Hillary, he went into Trump-hate mode.
Apparently you don't have a firm grasp of it...
Hillary Clinton
was in
Courting Des Moines (2016)
with
Sally Kirkland (I)
was in
JFK (1991)
with
Kevin Bacon
...conspiracy...
The universal excuse for explaining all maladies Clinton does not make it any more true.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Their background is specific enough.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
1) Russia hacks emails server(s).
2) Russia chooses a staffer with just enough server access to be a plausible leak.
3) Russia delivers emails to Snowden posing to be said staffer.
4) Russia kills staffer.
5) Clinton looks bad for emails, and bad for the murder.
Has Russia ever killed individuals on foreign soil before?
As of now it's perfectly appropriate to abbreviate his name using the first three letters.
Wikileaks should have never allowed itself to become a one man show.
Correcting The Record much?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
No thank you, but having a Clintonian murderer in office is not acceptable in civilized society.
Might pass for Illinois or Arkansas though.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Total bullshit as you can see assumiing you aren't brain dead
or desperate to get out of the Equadorian Embassy without doing life plus 99 for espionage.
Looks like people want to white-knight m'Lady just to protect The Narrative.
Apparently no-suspect murders, no-loss "robberies", and multishot "suicides" of politically linked officials are too commonplace for some Slashdotters.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
A Trump aide will read this story and the /. responses... next thing you know Trump will once again regale us with his "many people are saying..."!
-Eric
We really need to teach rhetoric/logic in schools again. Even people who claim to be nerds don’t seem to be able understand logic.
All of you who are claiming that the DNC/Clintons/aliens had Rich killed should read this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Your arguments are based on logical fallacies, mostly a combination of “argument from incredulity” and “shifting the burden of proof.”
You need to turn in your nerd cards.
Total bullshit as you can see assumiing you aren't brain dead
You appear to not know that no one uses snopes anymore for validation. It's become a laughing-stock of a joke now. The only people who use it are clueless. Sorry.
It was purchased by an evil rich old far left progressive couple who bought it for the express purpose of turning it into a liberal lying haven of lies. And they succeeded. No one trusts snopes anymore.
Politics is a game, and the most craven will be the most successful at it.
I once saw a very long list... many could be explained as coincidental deaths, but some required, ah, willing suspension of disbelief.
'Course, could be they're just trying to live up to the Kennedy legacy.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Sorry fool, but as of now EVERYONE not right wing insane like Drudge dismisses any claim vetted and found false by Snopes.
NY Times, St. Petersberg Times, L.A. Times, CNN, ABC EVERYONE will cite Snopes as a reliable debunker
Sorry fool, but as of now EVERYONE not right wing insane like Drudge dismisses any claim vetted and found false by Snopes. NY Times, St. Petersberg Times, L.A. Times, CNN, ABC EVERYONE will cite Snopes as a reliable debunker
Thank you for the validation. You just proved my point completely. Well, except for the reliable part. Enjoy.
Ahh, so the only RELIABLE sources are those who told you about the Hillary murder of Vince Foster, discredited by every Republican in Congress THREE TIMES?
Seriously, get help. Licensed to prescribe strong drugs help.
People don't just die naturally or accidentally for having too much knowledge about their employer. Never mind that the reflexive excuses seem to come out when people dare question what happened.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.