[parfe]

>"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.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-m...

Assange's transparent conflation of the murder of Seth Rich with "our sources" is obvious. He won't outright lie and claim Rich as a source, but he's nakedly prodding you to form your own conspiracy theory.

[imron]

> Assange's transparent conflation of the murder of Seth Rich with "our sources" is obvious.

Exactly. It would be careless in the extreme to just accidentally out a source like this, and for all his faults, Assange is far more intelligent and careful than that.

[skylan_q]

Outing a source that's already dead and everyone who wants anyone connected to him controlled/dead?

No, I don't think there's any added risk at this point.

[imron]

Not in this case, but if it turns out Seth Rich was the source, then I imagine future sources will be wary about leaking to an organisation who carelessly gives away their identities in media interviews.

Also compare it to Assange's previous statements about the importance of protecting the anonymity of their sources and that creating ambiguity and uncertainty is one way of doing that.

[skylan_q]

Identity was given away after he's been killed. That is to say, he was already outed. There is no danger anymore as it's been realized and the people out for blood already got it.

[imron]

When I said 'careless in the extreme' in my earlier post, I meant that it undermines the entire credibility that Wikileaks is able to protect the anonymity of its sources.

If it loses that credibility, then future leakers will be dissuaded from leaking out of fear that they too will accidentally be outed in a moment of carelessness, and Wikileaks is doomed.

I don't think Assange would risk the reputation of Wikileaks like that, and think that the death of Seth Rich is unfortunately being used as means of subterfuge.

[DominikR]

Oh believe me he will leak the proof for it too. He will slowly destroy the Democrats by constantly leaking proof of their outright criminal conduct.

And Trump doesn't strike me as a man that will allow the Clintons to get away from this. He will definitely persecute them to the fullest extent after he has won the elections, he even said himself that he believes Hillary should go to prison.

[guelo]

Why would I believe you when you have no proof and Assange has no proof. If Assange has proof he should release it, otherwise he's just injecting more conspiracy theories into an election that is already poisoned by them.

[ethanbond]

You meant "prosecute."

Err, wait... Maybe not.