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: 5, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:15AM
It's not easy to fight a state. The amount of power state holds, most people can only imagine. Most conspiracy theories can in fact become true if state wishes it to be so.
I have great respect for Julian Assange. One can do a lot of damage to state while state is not looking but to have every country looking for the right moment to swipe you off, and still to continue with your work requires mental fortitude more than anything else. One that is not easy, one that even president of USA has not been forced to show as of now.
I had many friends tell me that bravest thing they saw of someone standing up to the system was a black woman standing in front of police. I disagree - the bravest thing is to create something that can stand up to the system while system is trying everything to stop you. Hats off Mr. Assange.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:16AM
http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2016/08/09/clinton-body-count-or-leftwing-conspiracy-three-with-ties-to-dnc-mysteriously-die-n2203000 [townhall.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:06AM
Bill Clinton's publicist died on July 17. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/arts/television/david-horowitz-dead.html [nytimes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @09:29AM
What is the statistical significance? Without that, this is just nutty talk. I.e. given the number of staffers in the DNC (or whatever, I don't really understand what the DNC is), is this an abnormal number of deaths? How does it compare with the months prior to whatever leaks happened? How does it compare to an average population of simiilar demographic living in Washington DC?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @10:17AM
Name any murders associated with the RNC.
Point to how many people get shot in the back, nothing was taken, and it is declared a robbery.
The particulars don't matter, nor does the statistical significance.
It's just marking the anomaly. Draw your own conclusions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @10:36AM
> Name any murders associated with the RNC.
Name any murders being associated with the RNC, you mean?
Media seizing upon this doesn't mean none have occurred elsewhere. Media attention is a fickle thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @12:19AM
Obvious suicide is obvious. Nothing to see here.
(Score: 2, Informative) by bradley13 on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:17AM
If true, it's yet another corpse in the Clinton casualty collection [clintonmemoriallibrary.com]. Or, if you prefer larger conspiracy theories, Hillary may just be a poor schmuck being used as a puppet by a larger group.
$20k seems like a pretty measly reward, if you're risking being the next corpse.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:54PM
Politicians at her level are never "poor schmucks". Possibly ignorant of all the details and horrible things done for their benefit, but not totally unaware.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:37AM
The idea that this guy was killed over the DNC emails doesn't pass the laugh test. The stuff revealed in the emails was stuff everybody already knew. All "proving" it did was get a couple of people fired who immediately got rehired somewhere else in the apparatus. If that woman who leaked the monica dress story didn't get killed, then the DNC leaker doesn't even rate. Besides, guccifer claims to have hacked it, not leaked it.
If the reporting of what Assange said is the full story, then he's being a dick. Why is wikileaks offering a reward for *this* murder? If the victim was not connected to wikileaks than it's just PR opportunism of the lowest sort. If the victim was connected to wikileaks then playing coy about "not revealing sources" is just lying through word games and should make any other leakers wonder under what circumstances might wikileaks play games with their anonymity? I want to think this is just mis-reporting, like it was last time when the news claimed he had evidence that would put clinton in jail when he actually said no such thing.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:45AM
Internet Hillary Defense Force thanks you for your ongoing effort, royal employee. An appropriate amount of compensation has been deposited into your account.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:51AM
Get over yourself. As if this podunk little site is worth spending a dime on psy-ops.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @09:50AM
So, this is part of your manditory unpaid overtime, then?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @09:53AM
That's what makes it great.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday August 11 2016, @12:13PM
and yet, we have your presence to shine a light on our little piece of discussion...
Did you get lost on the way back from your political toadying?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @12:31PM
Toady?
Don't you mean sheeple!?!!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday August 11 2016, @12:55PM
That AC has a legitimate opinion. Maybe instead of accusing anons of XYZ, you could explain why you think killing this staffer would be a well-calculated move on the part of the Clintons/DNC?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:52PM
So, you have no rebuttal, then?
(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.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday August 11 2016, @03:26PM
There is huge value in taking something from the realm of speculation to the realm of fact. That is what whistleblowers do and to denigrate it like that makes you a moron.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @03:42PM
An accurate description of events is not denigration.
You are just so embalmed with rage against clinton that you see anything that doesn't reinforce your worldview as insulting.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:27PM
What is insulting is your ascription of "rage" to any view of Hillary Rodham Clinton that correctly holds her as damaged goods at best.
Otherwise, as a small number of vocal people are fond of saying, all Snowden did was just confirm what everyone already knew. So why all the hue and cry for the extrajudicial murder of Edward Snowden, or threats to try him for treason-esque crimes should the US gov ever get its mitts on him? Just let him come back home and schlub around like the rest of the worker drones - after all, what he did was no big deal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @03:10AM
> What is insulting is your ascription of "rage" to any view of Hillary Rodham Clinton that correctly holds her as damaged goods at best.
Not any view. EVERY view. Hemo is so fucking rageful that he can't read *anything* about clinton without assuming the maximal worst interpretation.
I'll spell it out for you since you seem to be traveling down the same path. Equating snowden's revelations to the DNC hack's "whistleblowing" that sur-fucking-prise some people working at the DNC were pro-clinton and let their personal biases come out in some of their discussions is insulting as fuck to snowden and diminishes both the personal risk he took and the value of what he did.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Thursday August 11 2016, @04:58PM
This, and a few other recent actions by Wikileaks, have basically trashed any reputation they may have had for impartiality. Maybe they were once actually devoted to exposing evil, wherever it hid, but right now, I basically have to read everything through a lens of "Wikileaks is a Russian propaganda source".
Which doesn't mean that everything they say is necessarily false, but it does mean that even their truths have to be evaluated in a biased context. Everything they release has to be at least considered as a potential fabrication, and for what Putin is trying to gain out of it.
Which is all quite sad, because we really do need an impartial, secure whistle-blowing organization, and Wikileaks at least seemed to be the one we needed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:44PM
> Everything they release has to be at least considered as a potential fabrication, and for what Putin is trying to gain out of it.
Assuming they have an agenda, I wouldn't expect them to be dumb enough to fabricate, but rather just selectively tell the truth rather than the whole truth.
Kinda like how delusional republicans insist that their party is less racist than democrats because it was the republicans who wanted to free the slaves and never you mind any of the stuff that has happened in the intervening years...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:28AM
https://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-nightmarish-online-world-of-gang-stalking [vice.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:12AM
Dude wasn't killed in some online world.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:43PM
If you die under hypnosis, you also die in real-life.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday August 11 2016, @12:57PM
What does that have to do with anything? The dude didn't die of fright.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:11PM
What does that have to do with anything? The dude didn't die of fright.
Well, we're having this conversation online and quite a few people here seem to think there's a massive conspiracy (very similar to the "gang stalking" meme) going on WRT the poor innocents murdered and piled up like cord wood by Hillary Clinton and her evil minions.
That seemed pretty obvious to me. Has everyone taken their meds?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:11PM
Well, if you had taken your meds and read the article the AC posted, you would have seen it was about people who believe there are massive operations to intimidate them and cause paranoia, by using multiple people to cause strange incidents during their daily lives.
Assassinating someone and making it look like a burglary or heart attack is a lot easier.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:26PM
Well, if you had taken your meds
I have. Ibuprofen, that is.
and read the article the AC posted, you would have seen it was about people who believe there are massive operations to intimidate them and cause paranoia, by using multiple people to cause strange incidents during their daily lives.
And I did. The whole article, in fact.
Assassinating someone and making it look like a burglary or heart attack is a lot easier.
I'd point out that one of the hallmarks of those who are "gang stalked" is that any information or point of view that contradicts their paranoia is rejected as misinformation. Sound familiar?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:45PM
I haven't said that I believe that the DNC or Clintons had this person or that person killed. The point is that the AC comment is off-topic.
Oh, I get it. Discussing any inkling of possibility that a certain killing may have been political in nature puts you on the same level as schizophrenic people or people who believe they are alien abductees.
You sound like an asshole, especially with that other reply.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:14PM
I haven't said that I believe that the DNC or Clintons had this person or that person killed. The point is that the AC comment is off-topic.
No. You did not. However, others made very specific accusations in the discussion. Which is, I assume, why AC posted that link.
Oh, I get it. Discussing any inkling of possibility that a certain killing may have been political in nature puts you on the same level as schizophrenic people or people who believe they are alien abductees.
Nope. I said nothing of the sort. Nor did I imply anything like it.
Sound familiar?
You sound like an asshole, especially with that other reply.
Thanks. Your opinion is duly noted.
As is your (unusual for you) lack of a sense of humor.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:33PM
Oh, and this may be useful for some here:
If you're worried about mental health issues affecting yourself or someone you know, you can reach out for information or support from organisations including Mind in the UK on 0300 123 3393, or to the SAMHSA helpline in the US on 1‑877‑726‑4727.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @09:15PM
As a psychotherapist who specializes in paranoid schizophrenia, I often advise my patients to go online to harmlessly work out their delusions concerning conspiracies. I find that it's a valuable adjunct to conventional therapy. Not only can it provide relief for the typical symptomatology, but it can lead patients to important insights.
A Russian woman in my care is a prolific writer. Recently, she wrote nearly 20,000 e-mails and uploaded them. In those fictional e-mail conversations, she outlined a conspiracy to determine the outcome of the American elections. The online community gently rebuked her, after which she made great strides in her recovery. The collective wisdom of the Internet can serve as a sort of mirror in which the mentally ill can begin to see the outlines of their condition. When this glimmer of awareness emerges, a traditional therapist can make, in mere years, breakthroughs that might otherwise take decades.
I want to express my appreciation to the rest of you for the wonderful things you've said to my patients. It's one thing when I as their psychotherapist tell them that conspiracies don't really exist. When they hear it in the voice of the internet, that conveys the message with real authority.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @02:07PM
This is total BS by Assange. And he won't even confirm whether Rich had anything to do with the leak, merely insinuates it in Donald Trump fashion:
I'm not saying whether Obama is working for the enemy, but you know, this looks real bad...
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:56PM
Against the Obama Administration [wikipedia.org] or its former Secretary of State [theintercept.com].
I mean he is most certainly not so afraid of those folks that he's been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for four years or anything like that. [wikipedia.org]
As such, he has absolutely no reason to inject himself into the US election cycle other than to present the Truth™ for the sake of helping his fellow man.
In fact, I understand that he had been in a romantic relationship with Chelsea Manning and is now Chelsea Clinton's back door man [urbandictionary.com].
As such, if he has any agenda, it's fucking as many girls named "Chelsea" as possible.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:08PM
Assangel is a self aggrandizing douche nozzle who needs to feel important. He doesn't need an axe to grind - all he needs is attention. In this instance (and probably others) he's just the conduit by which documents were routed into the public realm to fulfill the desire of others.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:18PM
Sure he has some motive, but I think you're violating both aspects of your sig :P
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @08:48PM
Logic and politics are not the same thing. Politics is the largest appeal to emotion and self referencing points of contention to make yourself believe you are in the right.