Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications Network Networking The Almighty Buck The Internet Politics Technology

Assange Implies Murdered DNC Staffer Was WikiLeaks' Source (washingtonpost.com) 706

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Assange Implies Murdered DNC Staffer Was WikiLeaks' Source

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @05:46PM (#52680595)

    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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

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

      Yes. Snopes does.

      http://www.snopes.com/seth-con... [snopes.com]

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

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

    • by DRJlaw ( 946416 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @06:36PM (#52680913)

      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.

    • by mbkennel ( 97636 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @06:54PM (#52680997)
      It doesn't sound like a robbery. And it doesn't sound like something the Clintons would do.

      It does sound like something Putin's men would do. Putin is clearly running the old KGB playbooks and interfering in US elections they way they used to interfere in Europe, but in the modern way.

      Pressure Rich for dirt, and then ice him when he starts getting nervous and talks to FBI.
      • "And it doesn't sound like something the Clintons would do."

        It sounds exactly like something the Clintons would do.

        "It does sound like something Putin's men would do."

        Oh, I get it, you think there is a substantial difference. We do have better propoganda and spin on our side, I'll give you that.

        Russian involvement in getting the message is neither here nor there. The "evidence" for it amounts to no more than I could accomplish with $5 hopping on a vpn service with an exit point in Russia. Actually Russian I
  • Hillary! and guns? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @05:53PM (#52680641) Journal

    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...

  • Leak is not a hack mr Russian shill
  • No way! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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!

  • by liquid_schwartz ( 530085 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @06:02PM (#52680713)
    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.
    • by hondo77 ( 324058 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @07:05PM (#52681071) Homepage
      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.
      • by Kohath ( 38547 )

        What secret? Scroll up. Several lists have been posted. How is it a secret if it gets posted over and over? How is it a secret when millions of people will say "yeah, they totally murdered those people"?

        Is Juanita Broddrick's story [wikipedia.org] of Bill Clinton raping her a secret?

        Personally, I'd say the Clintons are totally innocent of more than half of the crimes people have accused them of.

        It will be interesting to hear the next 4.5 years of denials and excuses for incident after incident as this stuff (and worse)

      • by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @09:13PM (#52681725)

        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.

    • There were suicides during Dubya and Obama years by government workers, party staffers, what not. Thousands and thousands of people end up being indirectly attached to any presidency. With roughly 25 suicides per 100,000 people, of course there will be a lot of them that could be tied to Dubya or Obama. You could make a similar list, there will easily have been enough suicides of the relevant type of person. Except that this is the Clinton's schtick with the conspiracy theorists, so they go with differe

  • 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.

  • by radarskiy ( 2874255 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @06:13PM (#52680769)

    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.

    • Third option (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @06:32PM (#52680891) Homepage Journal

      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 [foxnews.com] to come. The biggest stash yet, he says.

      He has stated that he has proof that Clinton had a hand in arming ISIS [heatst.com].

      I'm running out of popcorn - need to go out and buy some more!

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @06:20PM (#52680823)
    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.
    • by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @06:37PM (#52680921) Homepage Journal

      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.)

      • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @07:25PM (#52681201)
        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...
  • by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @06:31PM (#52680889) Journal
    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.
    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... [cnn.com]
    ""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/... [wikipedia.org] 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... [breitbart.com]
    ".... surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry over ..."
    " .... directly out of Gamma reporting. "
  • by davmoo ( 63521 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @07:04PM (#52681061)

    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.

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @08:23PM (#52681471)

    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.

  • by rbrander ( 73222 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @08:50PM (#52681615) Homepage

    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.

    • That makes sense, except for the fact that Assange hates Hillary and will do anything to screw her campaign.

How many Unix hacks does it take to change a light bulb? Let's see, can you use a shell script for that or does it need a C program?

Working...