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."
Yes. Snopes does.
http://www.snopes.com/seth-con...
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
http://www.whatreallyhappened....
Scroll down to "body count"
Perhaps some of this is circumstantial, perhaps some is accidental. Perhaps. But perhaps some percentage of this really is what it seems (to me) to add up to.
This isn't whistle blowing anymore. For one thing a whistle blower _never_ reveals a source.
Julian didn't reveal the source either, and he stated as much in the interview.
You're listening to what the *press* said Julian said. That's a completely different thing.
(viz: what the press reports that Donald Trump says, versus what he *actually* said.)
Snopes has declared all of this False. http://www.snopes.com/politics...
"Clinton was acquainted with some people who died — that's about all one can make of this list."
Oh, and by the way, where does your "double tap to the back of the head" actually come from? In the article it says he was shot several times from behind and was still conscious when found. While it's theoretically possible to have multiple gun shot wounds to your head and still remain conscious for a while, if your description of an assassination is true, then either it's the worst assassin ever, or some other set of circumstances.
I'm thinking your "double tap" is just your idea of a necessary flourish to try to underscore what you know is a rather tortured line of logic.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's unreasonable for two reasons. The first is that for Democrats, any Republican isn't mentally healthy and therefor shouldn't own a gun. The second is that no restriction will ever be enough; having passed one gun ownership restriction law, they'll demand a stricter one, and then another, and then another - until the only people allowed to legally use guns will be their enforcers.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Now for a slice of reality, the Russian government does not care which one is elected, Trump or Clinton, as they are empty figure heads
I don't think you realize how serious this election is. Putin regards the breakup of the Soviet Union as a great tragedy. Only one of those candidates is implying that Russia can invade former USSR states like Estonia unless they cough up money they don't have.
So they purged the democrat rolls of Bernie Sanders supporters
I had no problem when I went to vote for Sanders. Nobody I knew who voted for Sanders (lots of people) was "purged" from the "democrat rolls". And when I eagerly rifled through that DNC dump looking for dirt on Hillary, I came up empty.
One truly laughable complaint by Clinton against Trump, critiquing Trump for inciting violence, seriously WTF?
Yeah, WTF is right... Trump wasn't calling for assassination, just "armed revolt"!
Oh Mashiki, how many times are you going to fall for this?
Let's take your Reddit link, because it's the most hilarious. It cites the Daily Beast article as the source of its "proof", when that is in fact the very thing that Snopes is debunking. And if you do the most basic research into the claims made in that article, they are obviously false. For example, they talk about a member of "LatinAction", which if you search for it doesn't seem to exist. No-one else has been able to confirm the claims made by the Daily Beast, and in fact some of the students have said directly that they were inaccurate.
"LET US BE CLEAR: We are not scared of the chalk. We are not mad about being politically challenged. We are rightfully angry because we also exercise our first amendment right to freedom of speech and there are people on this campus, and in this country, who as a result choose to threaten us and twist the truth to protect their own bigotry."
Okay, one more, because you might learn something from this one.
The Ethics Alarms article is very obviously misleading you. For example, it claims that "Notice that the TRUE and FALSE sections donâ(TM)t match the claim. Thatâ(TM)s because Snopes is playing the logical fallacy games of moving the goalposts and using straw men." That's only because of the way they edited the quote from Snopes.com, if you follow the link they provide it is extremely clear that they are addressing the exact claims made and what Ethics Alarms is claiming is a "straw man" is just a short summary of those claims.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Oh please. Snopes does this all the time to mislead people. They create a strawman of the actual story so they can label it "mostly false" and then in the print acknowledge the actual argument so they can pretend to be credible. Case in point, the Philando Castile shooting.
Castile was shot by a police officer in July. His girlfriend then made a video of the aftermath and put it up on facebook in which she claims they were stopped for a busted taillight and the officer flipped out and shot Castile for no reason other than the racist cop was scared of black people. The media ran with the girlfriend's story without question. This drew national attention and was one of the incidents cited by the man who shot and killed 5 Dallas police officers later in the week as one of the motivations for his actions.
Her story sounded fishy, and conservative media, which doesn't believe that racist cops are gunning people down for no reason investigated and found that, in fact, Castile was pulled over because he matched the description of an armed robber from a convenience store heist a few days before. And this is the claim made in the article snopes declared false:
Castile and Ms. Diamond Reynolds (Facebook video uploader) were pulled over by police because Castile matched a BOLO Alert for an armed robbery suspect from four days prior.
What does snopes pick as the claim?
Claim: Philando Castile was wanted for armed robbery when he was killed by police officers.
Which they then labeled "MOSTLY FALSE."
No. No one ever said the cops were out looking specifically for Castile. Just that he was pulled over because he matched the description (and he did). So, reality is the cop did not freak out and murder a random black man. He had a reasonable suspicion he was dealing with an armed robber. It would have been great if the situation had ended a different way, but if the officer was wary of the man and shot it was "because possible armed robber" and not "because black." To this day we do not know if Castile was the robber or not. I looked and couldn't find any new information about that aspect of the investigation.
Why didn't snopes choose this as the claim:
Claim: Philando Castile was stopped on suspicion of armed robbery when he was killed by police officers.
That's the actual claim from conservative media, and could have been labeled "TRUE."
But, snopes has their bias to push, so of course they can't do that. Would have been nice, though. Maybe if the media had run with "Man pulled over on suspicion of armed robbery shot" instead of "Racist cop murders black man for no reason" the Dallas shooter might not have been so mad, and not murdered all those cops?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.