[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.