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: 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.