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."

Comments

Clintons have killed tons of people

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a list, it's over 50 people.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Anonymous Coward]

lots of people involved with the Clintons seem to have a sudden case of suicide for no apparent reason.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[LynnwoodRooster]

Decent little list here.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Calydor]

Two directories and a file name in all caps.

Domain name already borderline conspiracy theory invoking.

I'm ... going to need a slightly more reputable source to believe it.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[bobbied]

There's a list, it's over 50 people.

Being a Conservative Republican myself since Regan.. This list is hog wash born in the darkest corner of Arkansas. The Clinton's are many nasty things, but they are NOT stupid enough to be out ordering hits on their detractors. I don't put it past some of their supporters, but Bill and Hill wouldn't do something as stupid as you suggest.

So can we PLEASE STOP with this tripe? Dredging up Vince Foster and Fort Marcy Park is pointless and detracts from *real* issues, like Hillary's role in the "bimbo eruption" team and what she allowed to be said about the long parade of women claiming Bill sexually abused them, then turning around claiming to be the "champion of women's issues" because she happens to have that kind of plumbing, not because she's done anything.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[johnsmithperson123]

I'm not willing to believe that the Clintons are killers. Not because they have moral scruples. Because murders are just too high profile and easy to understand.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm ... going to need a slightly more reputable source to believe it.

Of course, attack the messenger.
Which Allinsky rule is that, again?

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Darinbob]

What's wrong with attacking the messenger? Are we supposed to believe every moron that comes along just because the moron is a "messenger"? If a conspiracy theorist comes along and claims the moon landing was a hoax then you attack both the message and messenger.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Alomex]

Nothing "decent" about that list. Vince Foster suicide was investigated to death by Republican prosecutor Kenneth Starr. Starr's report stated that he found no reason to believe the death was other than suicide.

A list that contains such a person after being cleared by such an impeccable source with ample investigative resources is now proven to be impervious to facts.

Heck for all I know Clinton killed every one of the other names listed, but this is the equivalent of the list opening with "the earth is flat and the moon landing was faked". No one in their sane mind would give any value to such a list.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[smkndrkn]

What's wrong with attacking the messenger? Are we supposed to believe every moron that comes along just because the moron is a "messenger"? If a conspiracy theorist comes along and claims the moon landing was a hoax then you attack both the message and messenger.

So they're a moron for linking a website and mentioning a very popular theory? Not sure how this gets voted insightful. The idea that powerful people, especially this particular pair, might be wrapped up in murders is certainly not moronic. You sir are a cunt.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Cytotoxic]

Yeah, it is nutty tinfoil hat stuff.

However, it is interesting that they came up with someone who committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest. Twice. With two separate guns.

That's nutty enough to inspire a boatload of conspiracy theories all by itself - forget any connection to political powers.

And there was a guy who committed suicide by cutting his arms 11 times, his neck twice and shooting himself in the head in such a way that no gun was found.

Or the suicide by gunshot to the back of the head.

Or the chick who packed her luggage and arranged it in the living room before committing suicide by gunshot.

Another guy who committed suicide with two guns? Wait... What?

Somebody spent a lot of time trolling the papers for weird suicide stories. How the heck do you even find a single "suicide by two guns" story? That can't be true... can it? Not the Clinton part.... just the "suicide by two guns" part. Most of these stories have to be covered in goofy sauce that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, right?

So a quick trip to Wikipedia.... and multiple gunshot suicide is actually a thing. And not just "guy rigged up two guns", but actual "dude took 3 shots in the chest to kill himself" multiple gunshot suicide. from the wiki:

One particular case has been documented from Australia. In February 1995, a man committed suicide on parkland in Canberra. He took a pump action shotgun and shot himself in the chest. The load passed through the chest without hitting a rib, and went out the other side. He then walked fifteen meters, pulled out a pistol and shot himself in the head. After reloading the shotgun, he leaned the shotgun against his throat, and shot his throat and part of his jaw. He then reloaded a final time, walked 200 meters to a hill, sat down on the slope, held the gun against his chest with his hands and operated the trigger with his toes. This shot entered the thoracic cavity and demolished the heart, killing him.[5][6]

Now that's determination.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Darinbob]

Not a moron for linking to the website and mentioning it, but for pointing to that website as evidence.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[rtb61]

Hint, hint, kind of stupid to professional suicide someone if you don't get away with. Sure plenty of amateurs get caught and most certainly the Clinton Clowns would have got caught if they attempted to do is personally, hence insider professionals were likely involved and using the government trained skills, quite simply got away with it as you would expect professionals to do (the reason why it was investigated 'to death' is it made no sense, except as the individual being suicided). Now a crushed throat training accident and two bullets in the back suicide 'er' robbery, in short order, added to the rest of the list, real organised crime stuff.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Mashiki]

Snopes is as trustworthy as Politico after their chief investigative reporter sends their clinton articles to the DNC for revision. They can't even get basic things correct, and when it's something to the contrary to their viewpoint they still label it as fake. Even when their own links prove otherwise.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Alomex]

So now we have a conspiracy to kill Vince Foster that not only includes Bill and Hillary, but also a Republican prosecutor. This is just like the moon landing, where for it to be true requires our sworn enemies at the time (i.e. the Russians) to go along with it. I mean it anything is possible, but you just lowered the probabilities of either of these events being true by orders of magnitude.

A conspiracy of confederates I can see, a conspiracy that includes your enemies is out there in la-la land.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Enigma2175]

Here is a nice fact for you:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

"Responding to homicide allegations, an official of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology acknowledged that doctors initially were puzzled by a circular wound on the top of Brown's head when his remains were recovered at the crash scene. The forensic pathologist then consulted with others and took extensive X-rays. As a result of these consultations and full-body X-rays, we absolutely ruled out anything beyond a blunt-force injury to the head."

Not sure what you are saying here. Wouldn't you expect the cause of death for people who crashed a plane into a mountain to be blunt force trauma?

Does anybody really doubt it

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[MightyMartian]

Yes, I doubt it. People get murdered all the time. If you have some actual evidence, do please provide it. Otherwise it's just a conspiracy theory largely built up to confirm your biases.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[LynnwoodRooster]

Well, it wasn't a robbery since nothing was taken...

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Anonymous Coward]

when 40 people associated with you suddenly "commit suicide" that's not something that happens all the time.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Anyone not wearing tinfoil over their entire body does not believe this.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Anonymous Coward]

The Clintons are "associated with" *thousands* of people. Bill was the f'ing president and Governor of Arkansas. Hillary has been politically active for decades. This is a 6 degrees problem and the evidence doesn't suggest that there's anything more than that.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[geek]

Nice, thank you. Except that the next move will be to discredit Snopes in some way, citing how their neighbor's boyfriend's uncle knows a guy that works for Snopes and says they take hush-money from the DNC all the time.

Not really necessary. Snopes has discredited themselves so many times now that they can't be taken seriously.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[DRJlaw]

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?

Days after a huge scandal? Was July 10th days after July 22nd in your universe? Because it wasn't in mine.

Even if you were somehow referring to the June 12th interview, it would take an unheard of efficiency for the DNC/Clintons/etc. to track this man down simply on the basis of an interview where Assange claimed to have "emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication."

Anyone who could pull that off would deserve the Presidency. I'd look forward to years and years of the U.S.'s external security problems being eliminated weeks before they could actually materialize, rather than morphing into post hoc debacles run by the Keystone cops.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[mbkennel]

Yes, people are murdered all the time.

But strangers are murdered, without robbery, infrequently. Strangers, not in criminal street or drug gangs and not being arrested by police, are murdered much less
frequently than that. No witnesses, no leads, no explanations? A pro?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[HiThere]

OK. Now I've read the Snopes claim. They basically say that "conspiracy nuts" believe that the DNC is involved and the Police believe robbery. That's probably true, at least if you modify it to "the Police claim to believe it was robbery". It's not anything to base an opinion on. It certainly doesn't show that it wasn't a political murder...a quite difficult thing to prove, unless you do it by proving that it was something else.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[elrous0]

Yeah, leakers who embarrass uber-powerful political figures get gunned down all the time in affluent neighborhoods by robbers who don't take their cellphones or wallets. I see it every day on the local news.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[WhiplashII]

A bungled robbery NEVER results in a double tap to the back.

In a bungled robbery, the gun goes off while the victim and perp face each other most often, and there is not a second shot to confirm death. That's the whole point, the perp panics and forgets to take the stuff - he doesn't calmly put another round through the heart.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[MightyMartian]

Do you have some statistics to back up your claim? It sounds to me like you're willing to rationalize this any way you can to make your conspiracy true.

Provide me one actual piece of evidence linking this to Clinton. Go on, I openly challenge you. I don't want innuendo, I don't want assertions. I want you to provide evidence, actual tangible real evidence.

Do you have it or not? Yes or no will do.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Black Parrot]

Does anybody really doubt that this man was assassinated by the DNC/Clintons/etc.?

Uh, yes. After at least 25 years of continual accusations and conspiracy theories told about the Clintons and investigated by their enemies, who for some reason never can produce any actual evidence, anyone who believes the latest new story is an idiot. It's like believing that the 50th 419 scammer is real, even though the first 49 took advantage of you.

Or maybe Hillary is the Queen of the Lizardfolk, with an effective IQ of 1679.6, who habitually commits perfect crimes and leaks them to her enemies so she can laugh at their inability to prove anything.

Please, give it a rest unless/until someone comes up with some actual evidence.

p.s. - Whatever happened to guccifer2 ?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[ChrisMaple]

There's no way Clinton was stupid enough to refuse to beef up security in Benghazi. But she did refuse. Hillary isn't an evil mastermind, she's just evil.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[cats-paw]

right. i can't believe snopes, but i should believe all the CT crazies that erupt on this site whenever something about Clinton shows up.

Got it.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[ooloorie]

Snopes simply says (in so many words) that it is not an established fact that Rich was assassinated, which is true. In fact, nobody knows at this point why Seth Rich was killed. The case is weird, but at this point it is just an unsolved murder.

However, if I ask myself whether Hillary Clinton would order a murder if it served her interests and she thought she could get away with it, I have little doubt that she would. After all, Hillary Clinton clearly has approved drone killings against foreign targets, including the killing of families and children, as part of her job. Do you seriously think that after having ordered the killing of dozens of people, she is going to make fine moral distinctions when it comes to someone threatening her glorious ascension to the presidency?

Hillary! and guns?

[LynnwoodRooster]

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...

Re:Hillary! and guns?

[Stenchwarrior]

That's an awful lot of adjectives...you sure they mean what you think they mean? I fail to see how trying to shed some rationality on a comment that was anything but, warranted such a response...but alrighty.

Clinton_body_count++

[liquid_schwartz]

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.

Re:Clinton_body_count++

[hondo77]

Bill Clinton couldn't keep his bj with an intern secret but you want us to believe he's kept his involvement in the murder of dozens of people a secret. Because you're a moron.

Re:Clinton_body_count++

[Tablizer]

However I don't recall a similar list appearing either during the Bush II years... [just a] long list of Clinton associates dying under questionable circumstances ...

I'd like to think it was a mere coincidence that a million people died in Iraq rather than from "revelations" about WMD's delivered by Bathroom Jesus to the Great Painter of Poodles and Feet.

Re:Clinton_body_count++

[Kohath]

Monica's bj would be a "secret" too, except she kept her stained dress and DNA tests exist. Otherwise she would be just another person on one of the various lists.

Re:Debunked ???

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Russians really hate Hillary

[im_thatoneguy]

Wow, so many Russian troll farm posters around these parts with silly conspiracy theories. Putin must really really hate Hillary Clinton.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[elrous0]

Everything's a crazy conspiracy theory until it comes out decades later in declassified documents that it was true. I remember back in the 80's when charges that the CIA was helping South American drug lords import shit-tons of cocaine into the U.S. was just a crazy conspiracy theory too.

I'm far from a tinfoil hat wearing kook. But the fact that this guy was murdered in a decent neighborhood just weeks after he leaked a bunch of sensitive documents about major political figures, by a "robber" who didn't even bother to take his cellphone or wallet, seems more than a little suspicious to me. It strains belief that it was all just a coincidence.

Make no mistake, Edward Snowden would have met the same fate if he hadn't been smart enough to get the fuck out of the country.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[rtb61]

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 and the power is with those that control major US multinational corporations, political plants in the CIA/NSA/DOD as well as other government agencies. You really think the Russian intelligence services are as stupid as the typical American voter and believes the elections in America have any real input into the purposeful mismanagement of the country (seriously they are purposefully bankrupting it so they can pillage it in the process, first cities, then states and finally the entire country, mass greed driven idiocy). Seriously this fucked up McCarthyist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism) troll of those opposed to Hillary Clinton must be paid Russian agents, is sickening. So they purged the democrat rolls of Bernie Sanders supporters, what's next purging the country of those opposed to Hillary Clinton because they must be agents of foreign countries (technically I am bwa ha ha), you can really, really see the goldwater gal in these tactics. (admittedly the American voter did get close to controlling their elections with Bernie Sanders and could even nail it, if they can get a Libertarian or Green candidate to wrest control of their politics from the corporations).

The HRC campaign now looks exactly like a Republican campaign, absolutely no difference from previous Republican campaigns, seriously, looks nothing at all like a Democrat campaign from the seventies, prior to the corruption of the Clintons and their corporate supporters, a steaming pile of bullshit. One truly laughable complaint by Clinton against Trump, critiquing Trump for inciting violence, seriously WTF?, is she jealous, the person who purposefully incited violence across the globe killing tens of thousands, concerned Trump is cutting in on her territory with his amateur attempts at inciting violence, when she is a true professional at mass incitement of violence enough to trigger actual wars (yep a true progressive Liberal warrior, uh huh, just like Uncle Tom Obama). HRC now going after international what communist Russian paid agents, what the fuck next, how can they twist Bernie Bros to attack Dr Jill Stein.

We know one of two things is true

[radarskiy]

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.

Anyone know what Assange's game is?

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:Debunked

[sexconker]

Snopes would have "debunked" all the stories about the NSA spying on us a few years ago.

Re:Third option

[Captain Splendid]

He has stated that he has proof that Clinton had a hand in arming ISIS.

Fuck me, that's a nothingburger. Name me one administration that hasn't sold weapons all over the middle east. This isn't a Hillary or Democrat problem, it's an American problem.

Re:Debunked?

[Dan East]

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.

Assange Implies It's A Slow News Day

[davmoo]

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.

Taken [Re:Does anybody really doubt it]

[Tablizer]

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?"

Given Snopes' left-leaning bias, that's moot.

[sethstorm]

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.

The MSM doesn't count.

[sethstorm]

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.

Re:Debunked ???

[EvilSS]

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 did check the qoute

[rsilvergun]

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...

Re:It hasn't even been truly investigated yet...

[Dan East]

True, but you can debunk the allegations that he was on his way to meet with the FBI over testimony against Clinton.

The problem is Snopes did not debunk that. How did Snopes prove he didn't get a fake contact from someone claiming to be the FBI and wanting to talk about what he leaked? According to a third-hand report (his dad said that his girlfriend said that Seth said) that Snopes quotes, he said "he was just about home". He could have just said that meaning he would be home soon. That didn't literally mean he was on his way home. And what was he on the way home from? Maybe meeting with a phantom FBI agent who didn't show, and he was followed and killed when he was at a nice secluded location in a known high-crime area? Snopes hasn't debunked a thing.

Obviously the police know *where* he was. The shots were heard and he was found there. Was that indeed "almost home" relative to where he lived? Was it directly between wherever he left from (did he leave his girlfriend's or do they live together?) and his home? Or was he just out somewhere random? The police know all these things, and have not released that information, and his father didn't provide it either.

What? No "it's a trap" theories?

[rbrander]

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.