Strongly implied by saying "we don't comment on who our sources are"?
It's not clear that Wikileaks even knew who their source was.
It's not clear that Wikileaks even knew who their source was.
Isn't the whole point that they supposed to play coy?
Plus it was more than "playing coy". For example, they promised a reward for people who came forward with info on Rich's death. Why do that if they had no relation to him?
>For example, they promised a reward for people who came forward with info on Rich's death. Why do that if they had no relation to him?
To try and uncover suspected corruption and leak it if there was more to his murder than met the eye. It was reasonable to suspect something was up.
Honestly the fact that this didn't occur to you is a little strange.
Who said they are the same thing? I repeatedly used "implied". You are framing it as if they were asked a direct question about Seth Rich and their only response was "no comment." They said stuff like this[1]:
>“Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. There is a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, who was shot in the back. Murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington,” said Julian Assange appearing on a Dutch television program called Nieuwsuur.
>Assange added, “We have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States and that our sources are, you know, our sources face serious risks that is why they come to us so we can protect their anonymity.”
He is directly implying that Rich was killed for political reasons, that he was a whisleblower, and then in the next sentence he says "our sources". Do you not see the implication in talking like that?
>To try and uncover suspected corruption and leak it if there was more to his murder than met the eye. It was reasonable to suspect something was up.
The problem, like elsewhere with Wikileaks, is the selective search to uncover corruption. I would have no complaint if Wikileaks made it standard to always offer a reward for information on the death of any political staffer. The problem is that they only offered the reward for this specific staffer already knowing that there was a conspiracy theory that he was their source. That gives them plausible deniability that they are "just seeking truth" while also reinforcing the perceived connection between Seth Rich and Wikileaks.
[1] - https://www.cbs19news.com/story/41466407/wikileaks-offers-20...
Oh, I'm sorry did you get upset because somebody inferred something different from what you said to what you actually meant?
That must be upsetting.
Nonetheless in spite of what you said I think maybe you were implying something different?
>He is directly implying that Rich was killed for political reasons, that he was a whisleblower, and then in the next sentence he says "our sources". Do you not see the implication in talking like that?
No, I categorically do not.
He was trying to illustrate the risks of revealing sources (i.e. people could get murdered) and he suspected something fishy was going on with the murder of Rich. As did a lot of people because it WAS fishy.
Once again, you KEEP ignoring that he said "WE DO NOT SHARE WHO OUR SOURCES ARE". You are deliberately ignoring that he stated that very clearly in favor of an incorrect reading between the lines.
>The problem, like elsewhere with Wikileaks, is the selective search to uncover corruption.
I honestly can't fathom the idea that uncovering corruption is just only if you manage to do it to every party equally.
It's essentially an endorsement of corruption.
>That must be upsetting.
There is no reason to be this rude. The conversation ended right there.