SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
WikiLeaks has announced a $20,000 bounty for information leading to a conviction in the case of a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer:
The speculation started within days of Seth Rich being gunned down in what D.C. police believe was an attempted robbery near his townhouse in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Northwest Washington.
Some on the Internet wondered if Rich was killed because of his work as a staffer with the Democratic National Committee, even suggesting he had handed WikiLeaks the 20,000 emails that embarrassed the DNC and forced the ouster of its chairwoman. Others suggested he was helping the FBI expose wrongdoing in the presidential election, and that made him a target.
On Tuesday, WikiLeaks shoved those conspiracy theories into the mainstream when it announced on Twitter a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich's killing on July 10 in the 2100 block of Flagler Place NW. It adds to a $25,000 reward offered by D.C. police, customary in all District homicides.
Julian Assange maintains that the organization does not reveal its sources, even after their deaths:
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. "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."
When the interviewer interjected that the murder may have been a robbery, Assange pushed back. "No," he said. "There's no finding. So... I'm suggesting that our sources take risks." When pressed as to whether Rich was, in fact, the leaker, Assange stated that the organization does not reveal its sources.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday August 11 2016, @12:53PM
I think you are essentially right. In the ITV interview [itv.com] he seemed to say that the FBI would accumulate enough evidence to indict Hillary, and then ignore it or be overruled, which is basically what happened. I'm not sure if we can say that the FBI is trading non-indictment for increased powers (something Assange suggested in the interview). Director Comey hurt Clinton politically with his explanation of how she was "reckless", seemingly to no avail (it looks like Clinton will beat Trump).
On to guccifer et al. There are plenty of claims floating around about whodunnit. It could have even been transferred through multiple parties before reaching WikiLeaks for all we know. We have the "experts" saying it was the Russians. I really don't care who the source is, as long as the material is promptly released and does some damage.
Killing the DNC staffer over this leak seems trivial and unlikely. But here are a couple points in favor of it: 1. There is presumably more leaked material coming. So the fact that some people simply got shuffled around doesn't mean the pain is over for the DNC/Clinton. That still doesn't sound like a good reason to kill someone, but... 2. Vindictiveness != rationality. A lot of people have been killed for petty reasons, and although you'd expect conspirators to be more careful, it only takes one person to order the hit.
Onto your analysis of Assange's motives. If this DNC staffer had zilch to do with the leak, Assange's $20,000 bounty does seem like a dick move. However, I'll note that while the father of the dead staffer urged people not to politicize the death, he also said that he was thankful that the extra money might lead to the killer(s) being caught. If the staffer was the source, encouraging capture of the killer seems like a good idea.
Potential leakers might be wary of WikiLeaks following this? I don't buy it. You can leak to WikiLeaks anonymously. Giving them your identity is your choice, unless you make some really basic security mistakes. AFAIK, Assange has refused to confirm sources, even long after they were known to be the source (Chelsea Manning). Setting up some sort of defense fund or bounty definitely has the appearance of connecting the person to WikiLeaks though... but it doesn't seem like Assange is going to be the first person to out anybody. FBI/NSA et al. will accomplish that far sooner.
I'll also point out that it has been almost a month since the murder. I'm sure we can find stats that say that most murderers are caught within the first 72 hours or so, and a lot of D.C. murders go unsolved. That means that Assange may be betting he can gain some media attention without risking $20,000 of his org's (or personal account's) money. And in the off-chance the bounty is effective, he looks like a swell guy.
All in all "I'm with him", but you should not have been modded troll.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @01:45PM
> Giving them your identity is your choice,
The point is that he straight out claimed not to divulge sources. Half-assing it is not consistent with that claim. Even if the guy is dead, who knows how many confederates he had who are still alive and do not need the additional attention.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:03PM
Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States...
18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information:
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government
Definition of Willful: [dictionary.com] adjective 1. deliberate, voluntary, or intentional:
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:18PM
WTF is the point of this reply? Did you reply to the wrong comment?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:25PM
No they didn't.
They're citing the exact fucking reason why the FBI declined to prosecute. They felt there was no intent to inappropriately locate intelligence.
Leaving a classified document in your briefcase overnight will get you fired, but it won't get you charges. Same deal here.
Understanding the context of the decision is kinda basic 101 material to criticizing the decision and I haven't seen a single goddamn conspiracy theorist on the internet even try and address that point. GP just kinda gave undue credit to OP and assumed they knew that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:36PM
Wrong, and wrong law cited. The FBI director explicitly stated that there is evidence to drag HRC in front of a court to face charges [youtube.com], but then implicitly said he didn't want to die of unnatural causes.
The correct citation of law by with to charge (and convict) Hillary Rodham Clinton [cornell.edu]:
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:52PM
Legal Definition of Gross Negligence [thefreedictionary.com]
Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:01PM
Are you suggesting that Hillary Rodham Clinton accidentally or involuntarily set up her wildly insecure Internet-facing email server which was used to send and receive SECRET, TOP SECRET, and/or Special Access Program classified information? Nothing else in your phrase mitigates HRC's obvious violations of federal law.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:39PM
By "wildly insecure" you mean the only Democratic server that hasn't been provably hacked?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @08:01PM
Are you trying to pick at nits, suggesting that China, Russia, et al can't intercept plaintext SMTP sent through the internet at large - let alone break into a single internet-facing server - as a means to distract from the fact that Hillary Rodham Clinton can and should be charged for breaking federal laws governing the handling of and reporting requirements for classified information [soylentnews.org]?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @02:09PM
internet facing windows "server", that is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:00PM
If the staffer was the source, encouraging capture of the killer seems like a good idea.
I think encouraging the capture of the killer is a good idea independent of whether or not the staffer leaked any information.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:12PM
Sure, but why should Julian Assange/Wikileaks of all the millions of people and orgs out there with $20k to kick around be the one to post the bounty?
Heck, there may even be a way to coordinate with the MPDC to increase the existing $25k bounty anonymously, in order to avoid making the dead man look like a possible WikiLeaks source. Instead, it was posted on the @wikileaks Twitter.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday August 12 2016, @02:25AM
Suppose this guy was actually killed for leaking that or some other information. If you have information about that, are you going to trust the MPDC? The people whose boss's boss's boss was responsible?
IF the conspiracy theory is right, and IF someone has proof of this, they're certainly not going to give that proof to the police. It's much more likely that they'd be willing to give it to Wikileaks. I don't personally think that theory is all that likely either, but if it is indeed true, who else could really offer a reward for that information and actually be trusted with it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @03:14AM
Is that bounty not available if you just publish the information? Must you only give it to the police and no one else?
Basically your entire argument boils down to a world so enormously compromised that there is no room for good actors in any position of authority. In which case, why should anyone even bother sticking their neck out for a dead guy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:40PM
I think you are right about the 20k. He basically risks nothing. The killer will probably never be caught. He either gets a cheap shot at HRC for saying he would cough up 20k or a real shot at someone he is actually gunning for, for 20k. It basically is a win-win bet for him with no downside.
Even if they happen to be one of HRC's inner circle and they have video and written, and witnesses proof of her saying do it, nothing will happen.
She works for the too big to fail banks and she is too big to jail.