WikiLeaks is becoming a political mess with Assange leading the charge.
The philosophy that all information should be public is just absurd. There is a reason that the whistle-blowers prior passed their information to reporters, it allowed for certain pieces of information to be redacted.
Sending out the name of every woman voter in Turkey does not benefit anyone. Leaking the private conversation of a man and his daughter does not benefit anyone.
Assange's crazed obsession of having WikiLeaks in the news doesn't help either, it only leads to further politicization and larger claims. The whole site has just turned into a show more than anything.
It's simpler than that. In the past, information was passed to trusted reporters because the media was trusted. A lot of what Wikileaks is reporting now is that the media is coordinating with the same people that these leaks are about in the first place. In other words, the media isn't trustworthy. So it's a choice, put it out whole, or take a real risk that it'll never see the light of day. You could argue that Wikileaks could be doing its own editing to redact sensitive irrelevant information, but then they're curating the content and are open to criticism regarding whether they're editing with a bias.
I get it, I don't like that innocent people's information is out there. However, it's a hard choice that Wikileaks is making there in how to put the information out there. It's not as simple as running it through reporters, because you don't know if you can trust them.
I don't think it's a political mess, though. You only really hear that when the information casts the "liberals" in a bad light. It's a lot easier to rip Wikileaks when it's a matter of national security, but in this case, it's fairly evident we had a biased primary and the media was complicit in that.
You both appear to be forgetting something much more important.
Information was passed to trusted reporters because they were the only ones who had access and the ability to publish in a newspaper so that many people could be informed at once.
This is no longer exclusively the purview of newspaper/television reporters.
I'm disappointed by the failure to work with some of the really good reporters, simply because they're good at what they do. But it's hard to argue that circumventing mainstream news is somehow inherently wrong at this point.
If someone pressed Assange on this matter, I imagine he'd point out that he has more experience examining and organizing major leaks than almost any reporter. And, further, that he trusts himself more than he trusts the objectivity of reporters.
Now, I can disagree on those claims, and I think I do, but there's no particular reason an experienced data-handler is inherently wrong for not using reporters.
A lot of what Wikileaks is reporting now is that the media is coordinating with the same people that these leaks are about in the first place. In other words, the media isn't trustworthy.
It doesn't work like that.
In the past WikiLeaks worked with the media on redaction. Its not like they just handed over the material and stepped away powerless. And they always had the fallback of posting unredacted materials if they felt the media was biased.
The refusal to redact is plain and simply philosophical.
Also, their former media partners, the NYT and the Guardian, won't work with them any more because of Assange's irresponsible and sociopathic behavior.
That's a bit of a strawman argument. The least they could do is vet the material with reporters, the media would have jumped all over these emails. If their reporting partners for some reason determined they didn't want to run with the story, then WikiLeaks could just go ahead and do what they've already done.
The fact that they don't care about the vetting aspect anymore just confirms the DNC leak was petty and personal, not an exercise in transparency. The DNC isn't even a government, wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable?
> The DNC isn't even a government, wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable?
I agree that this was personally motivated, but that's a pretty laughable claim. A major political institution was attempting to manipulate an election for the US Presidency, but it's outside Wikileaks' purview because the DNC isn't technically part of the government?
Vetting and bias are topics worth discussing, but when political officials using 'neutral' funds try to reshape an election, I'm quite happy to label that a "government accountability" issue.
Edit: removed "state funds" reference, I had misunderstood part of FECA. I don't think it changes the point.
Given how much money goes into an election, this level of collusion should piss you off at least a little if you supported Bernie Sanders, right? It's not an outright fix, but if the deck was stacked, any donations to candidates other than Hillary Clinton were sort of like pissing into the ocean. Maybe a little less satisfying than that.
I agree that it was personally motivated. I just don't care. I want to know if our major media outlets are coordinating with specific campaigns, or if campaign finance laws are being broken in general. I'd love to see those Goldman Sachs speeches that Hillary is looking into for 6 months now.
It's not collusion, the decisions are all being made within the party. It's wrong and unfortunate the way Sanders was treated by the DNC (I supported and donate to Sanders), but it's the DNC's call to operate however they want to operate.
It's not really, though. Or at least, what the DNC did wasn't just operating how they chose.
The DNC portrayed itself as a candidate-agnostic intermediary that wanted to see a Democrat win the election. They fundraised, did press coverage, and organized events using that claim. They were repeatedly accused of being biased, and they denied the accusations then publicly mocked the accusers for spinning crazy conspiracies.
So no, the DNC didn't 'rig' the primary, they didn't have the power. But everyone who donated to the DNC has a right to be angry. The DNC is free to operate as they choose, but they lied about how they operate, and took money under those false pretenses. We aren't expected to accept that behavior from companies or charities, and I don't want to accept it from political groups either.
Actually, in several states the two-party system is baked pretty deeply into the state-level laws. Pennsylvania, for example, has a primary system where one has to declare whether one is Democrat, Republican, or Independent, and then must vote on the ballot corresponding to that declaration (with the Independent ballot holding only referendum questions and not any input into the primary process).
Those elections use the state's voting machines and vote security infrastructure. That's functionally equivalent to being state-funded, even if the funding is in terms of human-power and machine use donation and not cash.
That's a bit of a stretch to reach the conclusion the DNC and RNC are "state funded". Poll workers are volunteers, the machines are bought with taxpayer money but they are used for multiple types elections (from state to federal).
But you're not a federal employee, that isn't your full time job. That's a responsibility you volunteered to take on, the fact that you get compensated for your time every time there's a primary vote doesn't imply you're an agent of the state, it's not a "functional equivalent".
The fact that I'm compensated means I am not a volunteer. In fact, I'm an elected official. It isn't my full-time job, but that's irrelevant.
The state pays me to assist with the operations of the taxpayer-purchased-and-funded voting machines for the purpose of executing both the Democrat and Republican primary elections (and no other primary elections) on PA primary day. I don't know how that can be not "state-funded."
Don't be silly. The DNC is not taxpayer funded, the primary election system that all major parties have access to is. The DNC is funded by non-tax-deductible donations.
I drive to work on government supplied roads, but that doesn't mean you have a moral or legal right to hack my company email.
Manipulate an election? What? Firstly, Clinton straight out won more votes then Sanders, secondly, it's absolutely legitimate for leadership of a political party to try to influence who that party nominates as its candidate. It's an organization. Sanders could have run for president as a socialist and nothing was stopping him from doing so.
Hang on, I think you're misunderstanding my objection.
Clinton won a majority, so the primary wasn't "stolen". She probably would have won without any DNC intervention, so it wasn't "rigged", either. And the DNC is under no duty to be objective, so it wasn't malfeasance in that sense.
My complaint is specifically that the DNC denied attempting to skew things to Hillary, and collected money while pretending to be neutral. Sanders repeatedly accused the DNC of favoring Hillary and attacking him, and DNC staffers said that the claims were untrue and absurd.
Priebus and the RNC openly opposed Trump, as was their right. Donors to the RNC knew that they were effectively donating to Cruz and Rubio, and against Trump. The DNC insisted they weren't opposing Sanders, and then did so behind the backs of voters and donors.
So no, I'm not mad that a party committee tried to influence a primary. I'm mad that they did so while swearing up and down they weren't, and mocking the Sanders campaign for claiming otherwise.
I guess, although you have to realize the reality of politics is often like this. It is because the voters on average are quite misinformed, so they will not understand the nuance of the situation. So, yes, they got caught in a lie and had to resign as a result.
In light of that, if you don't believe parties have a duty to be fair to all primary contenders, then I'm at a loss. How do you expect to avoid cronyism and corruption when "private" political parties are outed working to bias primaries and you say that's okay?
what does "fair" mean? A party's purpose is to advance a set of ideas. So, absolutely, the party leadership can choose not to be fair to a primary candidate that does not support those ideas. As an example, if Sanders is a socialist and wants to advance socialist ideas, he can form his own party and have it be on the ballot. And that party should be free to reject primary candidates who are not socialists, no? otherwise, why have parties in the first place ?
Having said all that, the democratic primary election was pretty fair and the current candidate is the one who won the most votes.
Don't you think fair means, at a minimum, not doing that kind of thing? The DNC's officials were trying to persuade their own party's voters against one primary candidate and for another primary candidate.
As I understand it, a party's purpose is to organize and provide membership for people sharing whatever ideology they share, who are then (among other things) capable of signing petitions for candidates seeking to run under that Party's name. If enough party members from enough districts sign your petition, you're on that party's primary ballot in that State.
Most of what the DNC and RNC do, or what they should do, is either administrative, or attacking the other party. I'm not defending that DNC vs RNC dynamic; I think we'd probably be better off without the party system, at least as it currently exists as a privatized crony-capitalism bullshit theater with very public repercussions... and I'm also in favor of fixing the voting systems used by the States. But, in the meantime, the DNC and RNC should be banned from trying to influence their own primaries.
If DNC officials want to attack one primary candidate, they should quit the DNC and go work for an opposing primary candidate's campaign. They don't want to do that, because they'd lose the status of working under the aegis of the DNC; they'd be working merely for one candidate or another, any of which could lose.
To put it succinctly, a political party official should act in a purely administrative manner with respect to the party's own internal operation, including its primaries.
Well, I disagree with your last statement. Party officials should act to protect the raison d'être for this party's existence in the first place. As I said above, if you are a socialist, by all means, register a socialist party, get on the ballot in every state, raise enough money for advertising, etc. to be competitive - nothing is stopping you from doing this. That does not mean that non socialist party officials should just roll over whenever a socialist runs in their primaries.
As an example, say what you want, Donald Trump is clearly not a conservative in any meaningful sense of conservatism. What is the long run result of his candidacy? there is a high probability that the long run result is irreversible damage to Republican party. Surely, party officials can act to prevent something like this, and not simply act as disinterested administrators. A political party in the US is essentially a private non for profit organization - that can run its affairs as the leadership of that party sees fit
in what way? do primary voters not support Hillary Clinton more than they support Sanders? Was it not up to them to decide ? were they in any way prevented from deciding ?
Doesn't it make it even worse? A private, oblique organisation has effective stranglehold on who gets the shot at presidency with little oversight, because "private"
The DNC is a private entity, and can act (internally) just about any way they want. You and I are free (well, constrained by finances I suppose) to establish our own parties that act however we want. Freedom of association and all.
People don't have to join the Democrats or the Republicans. Those who do make that choice are now learning that these parties function exactly like any other corporate entity. Some sort of oligarchy calling the shots over a pseudo-democratic process that they ostensibly claim to be the real process. Time for the schisms.
> wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable?
No, not exactly.
WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption.[1]
I would definitely say the DNC leak was restricted official materials involving corruption.
When you say "vetting" what are you actually suggesting they do? Check to make sure the information is actually true? As far as I can tell they did that. Check the make sure that the information doesn't put peoples lives in danger? It doesn't seem like they put any lives in danger with this leak. Except maybe their source's but I'm not sure how "vetting" the information would have helped that.
>The DNC isn't even a government, wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable?
Something tells me you would not be making this comment if they released leaks that implicated "evil" corporations like Exxon-Mobile, Wal-Mart, Koch, ect.
"the media" is a bunch of individuals, many of which are not as you describe. They could find trustworthy and thorough reporters to work with if they wanted to. They did before.
So why not run it through reporters and if they bury the story, then release it. Snowden ran his story through reporters and it certainly wasn't buried.
Think about it like a data project at a company (because that's my job, heh). There's this weird, but accurate, assumption that the first to report something is assumed true, and anything that comes later either has to conform to that or is presumed to be wildly inaccurate.
It's not so much the risk that the media buries it, I was incorrect in framing it that way. The bigger risk is that the media spins and reports it. Remember, they still have the majority of the eyes and ears.
Snowden did it, but note that it involved foreign media. It's probably easier to get foreign media involved in an international spying story than it would be to get someone to take up the US democratic primary and campaign finance laws (which everyone else in the world already thinks is ridiculous). I'm not saying it can't be done, or that it shouldn't be done or whatever else - but I do think it's a complex decision.
Even if we generously interpret the "whole lot of reporters", the implication here is that they were left with no reporters to work with. That's absurd. There are many, many reporters, and even many credible reporters. It would not have been difficult to find non-implicated reporters that could deliver this with an impact.
You're acting as if there is a small group of reporters who, if compromised, make it impossible for Wikileaks to be responsible.
I agree with this. There is no vast media conspiracy. If nothing else, Fox would be all over it, as would the tabloid (most of these days) media. There's no honor among thieves.
I find it weird that all these critiques from liberals come just when Wikileaks released info that the DNC primaries were rigged. Before that, it was pretty much all praise. Now, it turns out one of their informant may have been the victim of political assassination and you focus on the fact that they released a conversation of a dad and his daughter, which is of course a blunder but still, compared to the other potential news... Not that I want to see Trump win of course, but I don't want to give a free pass to the other side either.
I think calling the primaries "rigged" misses a lot of nuance about the Parties in the US and the situation at hand.
First, parties are clubs and they can have their own rules about their internal elections and campaigns. The rules of the normal election at federal level do not apply. The whole free association thing.
Second, Bernie is not "real" democrat. He was prior and plans on returning to the Senate as an independent. He joined/registered early enough before the process started... but essentially he was just renting the ticket. I can understand how the party would try to dissuade that.
Which leads to my third point, the party has to care about its platform, future viability and not just one candidate. The Clinton have a long history with the DNC. Obviously Bill was a generally well liked president before (by the base) but they have done a lot over the years to support other Democratic candidates in State, Congressional and even Mayoral races. They've raised a lot of money for the DNC and down tickets candidates.
Finally, Bernie didn't earn any extra points (my eyes) by claiming a lot of problems with voting and the process it self. He benefit from the system where there were caucuses; in NYC (where the DNC electoral organizer sucks) he voters that were purged were in heavy HRC; and to take the the next level the campaign started claiming at the end it was going to flip the super delegates after bitching about it for a while.
TL;DR Parties have their own rules; Bernie did not pay his DNC dues; parties have to care about a lot more then a single election; Bernie acted like a spoiled child about ballot box issues.
Disclosure: I'm registered independent in NY. Can't vote in either parties primary as a result of that.
Currently, the presidency is like a public park bench placed on private land. The bench is public property and everyone has the same theoretical right to sit on it - but there are only two paths to the bench, and both paths' owners charge huge fees.
A hundred years ago, it probably seemed possible to build a third path - but with our modern understanding of game theory, we know a two-party system is the inevitable result of first-past-the-post. Building a third path is impossible.
This creates an inconvenient contradiction - the moral legitimacy of the person sitting on the bench derives from the fact that everyone has the same right to sit on it, but we can quite plainly see the criteria for moral legitimacy are not met in practice.
Some people would say we should aspire to meet the criteria for moral legitimacy; and therefore that, regardless of their private status, their internal elections for access to the path should be free, fair and open to all.
Of course, other opinions are available. Some people would argue that the private property owners' rights were more important, morally, than the legitimacy of the presidency. Or that the idea of pursuing morality in politics is a joke. Or that our consent to our rulers isn't derived from the moral legitimacy of their being fairly elected, but comes from some other source such as habit or force of arms. Or that everything is a shade of grey, america is better than russia or north korea, and improving sounds like a hassle who can be bothered?
I'm very involved in party politics and have run for office.
The Democratic Party isn't a single thing. I can't even summarize it briefly. One facet is a bunch of independent groups sharing the same logo, tribal identity. Another is a hierarchy of squabbling ad hoc volunteer organizations fighting each other for relevancy. A third are the Democratic themed campaigns which are largely parasitic on the party organizations. A fifth are the loose coalitions of like minded interest groups also squabbling for resources and relevance.
The DNC isn't even that influential. Closest analog I can think of is a trade association that hosts conferences.
I can't speak directly to the GOP's structure. From observations and contact with their players, they're similar.
People don't get how candidates are chosen to run for office. Especially at the top of the ticket. I'm talking before the primary / caucus. Special interest groups form and then go candidate shopping. "Superstar" electable candidates, like GWB and Obama, are selected, groomed, promoted to other interest groups (investment clubs, individuals). Note that these groups filled the vacuum left by the decline of the traditional GOP and Dem party machines.
All the other candidates are delusional self promoters. They literally have almost no chance. But they run anyway, to promote their brands, to take one for the team, to get the experience, because anything can happen during the campaign cycle, etc.
Me personally, I'm still gobsmacked that Trump iced out both Cruz and Rubio. My initial post-mortem for the GOP 2016 is Trump's dark horse victory just demonstrates how dysfunctional the GOP has become (the Tea Party has driven away their "moderates").
After following this election pretty closely I have observed that many people do not in fact understand how the parties operate and that the primaries are a party and not a legal construct. It's possible that people either have faulty ideas how the party process is run, or just do not have enough experience with it (many new Bernie voters).
I'd be more inclined to give the two main parties the benefit of the doubt if their survival wasn't essentially guaranteed by the existing federal election method & media landscape.
I'm not really trying to give either party, or in this case the DNC the benefit of the doubt. I don't have any reservations about either party being particularly democratic (as in the party elites have most of the power).
I'm just not naive about how they work but ultimately I believe they can run however they want to.
If we want to reform the system that we have (two part) it's clearly not going to come from the parties. I'm personally in favor of having open primaries in every state with relatively late voter registration, getting rid of the electoral collage and the rule that if there's mo majority the senate decides the election.
I'm not exactly sure how to find that the requirement of "paying DNC dues" is defensible. We're not talking about a local sports club.
Don't get me wrong. While I supported Bernie, I feel he was outplayed in a masterful game that he wasn't ready for. I'm not sore about it. Frankly, I'm surprised Hillary didn't win by a far larger margin, considering she had a decade to make deals and sway powerful people her way, and apparently, an entire political machine skewed in her favor.
But the idea that the entire DNC teaming up with a single candidate is to be expected and not taken as simply "rigged" seems intentionally obtuse.
I would feel differently about it there was multiple viable Democratic candidates and they were helping out the favorite. Since Bernie was just renting the ticket, I don't feel this applies here.
If Bernie ended up with < 5% of the voters / delegates, I might be obliged to agree with you, but that's far from the end result. It seems he's far more in-line with the democratic party, according to the party itself, than you're suggesting.
The guy joined the party 1 year before the primary and he's planing on coming back to the senate as a independent. Just because he does caucus often with democrats does not change my assertion that he was just renting the ticket.
This is a big difference and it matters to the party (organization).
From my perspective, the DNC leaks really didn't show that the primaries were rigged. It basically just showed that workers within an organization are human and naturally form biases. These were not public communications from the DNC, but private conversations between individuals. Expecting them to practice full-neutrality in every conversation is a little too much to expect.
Were establishment Democrats particularly pro-wikileaks during the Manning releases? I don't recall that - in general both parties have been pretty much anti-whistleblower and pro-secrecy.
If anything the Republicans (particularly pro-Trump factions) have been awfully hypocritical on this stance since they've previously called for various leakers (Snowden in particular) to return home and face the death penalty. They definitely previously referred to Assange as a criminal and a threat to national security, but I guess as long as he's anti-Hillary he's a hero?
Assange has a personal vendetta against HRC because while Secretary of State she complicated his life. She wanted to find a way to indict/prosecute him and she made sure a lot of nations doors would be closed to him. Details on vendetta: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-...
I like the mission of wiki leaks; I think they should do some basic editing like not leaking names or ordinary citizens (or low level gov employees). But, I think Assange is terrible front man for the organization. I guess nobody else wants the job.
I'm sure many Sanders supporters were happy for ammunition to help their case that they were treated unfairly, but I don't think catty behavior at the DNC is anywhere near as important as Wikileaks' earlier work uncovering potential war crimes in Iraq.
And I find Assange's overt attempt to influence the outcome of a US election much more distasteful than anything that was in those DNC emails.
Plenty of people have been criticizing Wikileaks since the beginning, not just "liberals."
If you really want to be fair about not giving people a free pass, don't give Assange one either. He's made his anti-Clinton bias clear, and it's obvious that his leaks only serve to benefit one specific party, not the cause of truth in general.
And let's not pretend that "the DNC rigged the election" is actually an assertion that's supported more by the leaked documents than by Trump-camp propaganda.
I'm not sure this is accurate. In fact, conventional wisdom says that Assange is pursuing this as revenge against HRC, who has historically been a major opponent of his. If he isn't pursuing revenge against her, then why isn't he going after the RNC?
I feel compelled to point out that your question has 2 assumptions:
- that the RNC is equally corrupt as the DNC
- that Assange has (or could obtain) evidence of that corruption.
If either of these assumptions is incorrect, then your question is meaningless.
There is proof that the RNC did not rig the elections against Trump, he won. That's impossible if it was rigged.
While there may not be proof that the DNC rigged it against Sanders, that doesn't prove it wasn't rigged. It only proves that no evidence has come to light that it was rigged.
>There is proof that the RNC did not rig the elections against Trump, he won. That's impossible if it was rigged.
And yet Trump has accused the RNC process of being rigged many times. Strange how the current narrative seems to be that only the DNC is exceptionally corrupt, to the point of rigging an election, and possibly having Seth Rich killed as if the Democratic party was literally a crime syndicate.
There really isn't proof of anything, either way, other than "rigged elections" being the current political accusation du jour.
That's simply false. The accusations against the DNC of "rigging" primarily revolve around bias (revealed in the email dumps), not actual electoral fraud. The RNC was almost certainly biased in a similar (likely more intense) manner against Trump.
It's also entirely possible to rig an election unsuccessfully.
The context of the "interference" is that people affiliated with the Sanders campaign were accusing them of rigging the Nevada primary, which very obviously did not happen.
It's very reasonable for the DNC to work with the media to defend itself against nonsense allegations.
This is false, and your "correcting the record" is only spreading mistruths.
This e-mail in particular is clear discussion of acting on promoting a narrative (i.e. shopping it to news organizations) to discredit Bernie's campaign: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056
I'm sure you'll find a way to explain that away though.
I feel like I'm just a curious bystander here - I haven't read much about the emails, nor looked at any of them individually until clicking on your link, so I really haven't formed an opinion on how noxious they are - but I don't see the smoking gun you seem to see in that email... Could you provide some more perspective on the issue, for those of us who are new to this debate?
This email is dated May 21, just 2 weeks before AP called the primary for Clinton. It was pretty clear by that point to everyone that Clinton would win the primary.
I'm not surprised to see DNC discussing narratives for the point when the primary is over.
Bernie had not conceded and the DNC still was obligated to be neutral. And yet, they were not.
So strange that they forgot to mention to shop this story around after the primary. How did you pick up on this intent of theirs without them saying it?
This is a weak talking point. The DNC has in its charter that it must be neutral. What the RNC may have thought of Trump is irrelevant. Anyway, you really want to be playing moral limbo with the RNC right now? That is where the moral high ground is?
As others mentioned, there was coordination on talking points as well to discredit his campaign.
The DNC also has in its charter that they must work to get Democratic candidates elected and work towards getting the ideals of the Democratic Party implemented.
Sanders didn't lose because the DNC said mean things in their internal email system. He likely lost because he never made much of a dent in the heavily black Democratic voting population in the South.
Did I say anything about why he lost? In fact most of these e-mails released so far occurred after he had little chance of winning. Nope, pure distraction in an attempt to deflect from my points.
> In fact most of these e-mails released so far occurred after he had little chance of winning.
That would seem to deflate your point a bit. Surely the DNC isn't violating its neutrality promise if the candidate has effectively been already chosen?
> I'm sure you'll be back to "correct the record"!
I've seen this thrown around several times in this thread. Is it an accusation I'm being paid by the Hillary campaign? If so, LOL.
Not at all. They are to remain neutral as long as they claimed they were. Sanders was still an active candidate through the DC primary, and he actively contested the California primary.
The candidate had not been chosen, but the DNC lackeys (edit: sorry, top officials) were coordinating media coverage against him.
> The site was described by CNNMoney as offering a "deeply conspiratorial, anti-establishment and pessimistic view of the world." Financial journalists Felix Salmon and Justin Fox have characterized the site as conspiratorial. Fox described Ivandjiiski as "a wonderfully persistent investigative reporter" and credited him for successfully turning high-frequency trading "into a big political issue," but also termed most of the writing on the website as "half-baked hooey," albeit with some "truth to be gleaned from it." Tim Worstall described the site as a source of hysteria and occasionally misleading information.
> Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman describes Zero Hedge as a scaremongering outlet that promotes fears of hyperinflation and an "obviously ridiculous" form of "monetary permahawkery." Krugman notes that Bill McBride of Calculated Risk, an economics blog, has treated Zero Hedge with "appropriate contempt."
> Lokey, a former paid Zero Hedge writer who left the website in 2016 over disagreements in editorial direction, characterizes the site's political content as "disingenuous," summarizing its political stances as "Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry=dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft."
You'll excuse me wanting a slightly better source.
This is precisely highlighting the point from the parent comment. Is ZeroHedge an untrustworthy source? Heck yes it is! The problem is so is CNN, MSNBC, NYT, and Fox. Nearly every traditional American news source is now viewed as untrustworthy by a very large amount of people.
You can argue with me on it, but what matters is that MANY people now believe this, for example nearly all Trump supporters (and there's a lot of them).
In my opinion, this is the single biggest issue in our new political climate. There is a large, and growing base of people who no longer trust either politicians or the media reporting on them. Conspiracy theories flourish in environments like this, and when enough people believe conspiracy theories are true... sometimes they take actions.
I guess the 'problem' is the internet. Without the internet people would be blissfully ignorant of how the media works.
These things have been happening for a long time. Businesses, governments and other entities all have the ability to manipulate the media. I view it as a power struggle that sometimes bubbles up in public.
Oh, and social media is a part of it. Just it's slightly more difficult to control without people noticing.
Zero Hedge clearly has a pro-Russia bias just like CNN has a pro-US bias. Doesn't mean you should ignore everything CNN or zerohedge say. Every once in a while, cnn and zerohedge publish interesting stuff, just keep in mind their bias while reading them.
Only if you believe it is pro-US to abolish the right to bear arms, the right to free speech (hate speech laws) and to impose Socialism on US citizens.
1. Because they tweeted the link to the item, they were blamed by the article. This provoked what seems in hindsight to be an overly defensive reaction. Given the accusations that Russia supplied WikiLeaks with information to publish and some construing this to mean that WikiLeaks is controlled by Russia, it’s easy to see how this could happen.
2. Even though my name was on the page as the uploader and I had tweeted it out first, WikiLeaks never tried to pass the buck to me or say that it was my upload or my fault. They never reached out to me privately to ask me to do or say anything about it, despite the fact that that would have made things easier for them or taken the pressure off of them. I can only conclude that this is because doing so would have violated the spirit, if not the letter, of their source protection policy by placing the blame on me or pointing the Turkish government in my direction. For that, I’m grateful.
Wikileaks has always been political.
If someone leaked the rnc's emails, those would probably be out too.
Let's not forget Cablegate in 2010.
I walked around in Philadelphia talking with DNC protestors, during the DNC. Most of them were democrats, who were glad to have evidence of corruption and collusion between the DNC and Media. Most of the protesters I talked with, only had good things to say about wikileaks, and assange.
I think wikileaks knows what they are doing, and are gaining mindshare among the alternative left and right.
I come to HN and everyone is all about transparency on everything until HRC is attacked. Then it's all "Wikileaks are bad people because I like Hillary."
What was the evidence of corruption? Everything that I read was essentially evidence that a political party had internal politics, and that they disfavored the guy that joined the party a year ago (and who promoted the possibility of primarying their sitting president a few years ago).
The corruption is that they repeatedly and publicly claimed that they were neutral in the primary process and were clearly not, acting in favor of their preferred candidate as many had said they were. Bernie supporters were dismissed as fringe lunatics believing in a conspiracy theory for reasoning that the DNC was coordinating against them.
There were some moderately-questionable emails about where donor checks were being routed. It would take someone with more knowledge of campaign finance than me to say if it was illegal or unethical, but the recipient of the email basically answered "don't send this stuff over text, you idiot".
either all information is public or only those in the power elite circles, which control media and its mediums, will have access to all information. I would rather the power rest in the hands of a well informed many since this is an inherently more fault tolerant system than the orwellian future your assertions seem to imply.
Ok. Medical: chronic PVT, and pseudobraintumor due to tetracycline allergie. Financial History 40k per year from 2011-2015 , last year no income, master student CS. That sums it up, I should probably post the details on github soon, since that is the policy of the company im founding following buffer.io precedent.
It is my firm belief that openness and honesty is as important for societal progress as it is for the scientific sort. But I don't expect you to adopt my sentiment only to weigh the full context of the consequences.
That's great! But this is a personal decision, and I would never do what you just did. Let's just both agree not to force our differing personal feelings about privacy on the other, and we won't have an issue.
You're conflating privacy and security (which are similar I know).
If you know my entire banking history that's a privacy issue (which jfaucett was ok with). However, if you are able to access my account and take money, that's a security problem.
The line can get really fuzzy sometimes, but they are different issues.
Can I interpret that the only reason you might have been upset at the illegal phone metadata collection program performed by the government is because they didn't release the information in an open-access dataset? Otherwise, fair game?
Wikileak's philosophy is not that all information should be public. Assange has been explicitely asked about this. The real idea is simpler, that you should know who you're voting for.
The problem is secrets get massively abused on every level. From governments classifying evil to parents teaching their children to keep their abuse secret. While there are benefits for privacy, at least for the government, they do not outweigh the costs.
Agreed. He's become a megalomaniac; the exact kind of person he fought to stop. Which is really unfortunate, because I do think there is a need for a Wikileaks-type service, especially given the declining state of journalism.
Information should be free the twist is that Wikileaks is brokering what is free and what is not...which is supposedly what they were working against. Assange (much like Greenwald) were not as true to the ideals that they set forth to the world and they are no better then the causes they were supposedly against. Reports are worse then Wikileaks they have no protection from Gov and worse they have no actual knowledge in the advanced areas but think they can make decisions that affect the dissemination of that information based on faulty reasoning.
Of course you'll be called a "conspiracy theorist" for speculating about this case in any way deviating from the official narrative. But the circumstances are extremely suspicious.
The DNC voter expansion data director was found shot dead, assassination style, two bullets in the back, in one of the safest neighborhoods of DC. Nothing was taken off his person. No forensic evidence was left behind. Yet the police deemed it a "robbery gone wrong." How can anyone believe this was a robbery gone wrong?
> Of course you'll be called a "conspiracy theorist" for speculating about this case in any way deviating from the official narrative.
Prior to Snowden, people who warned about extensive government surveillance were dismissed as 'conspiracy theorists'. After Snowden, everyone said, "oh all this was common knowledge anyway".
Prior to the DNCLeaks, Sanders supporters who complained about the DNC favouring Hillary were dismissed as 'conspiracy theorists'. After to the leaks, everyone said, "oh this was all common knowledge anyway"
Things are getting pretty messed up. I used to mentally snicker at anyone who seriously used terms like 'liberal media' and 'mainstream media' as pejoratives. And yet here we are in 2016, and it's harder and harder to deny that they are right to use terms like that.
And I'm appalled. I don't know what to do about it, but when you have self-declared liberal readers of the NYTimes complaining that they have to go to Fox News of all places to get the full story[0], then you know there are serious problems.
>Prior to the DNCLeaks, Sanders supporters who complained about the DNC favouring Hillary were dismissed as 'conspiracy theorists'. After to the leaks, everyone said, "oh this was all common knowledge anyway"
Multiple times in this very thread, the argument is "this is how the DNC is supposed to operate, they can do whatever they want since it's a private organization". Which is frankly even worse.
I live 2 blocks from where he was shot. It is a huge stretch to call the neighborhood "one of the safest". There were two armed robberies within one week of his murder on the same block he was killed. It is very reasonable to think it was a robbery gone wrong.
Also, since when is "assassination style" shooting someone in the lower back allowing them to live long enough to get to a hospital?
Conspiracy theories aren't by their nature idiotic. Many coverups, lies etc have happened in the past, and will happen in the future.
Moon landing conspiracy theories are dumb not because they are conspiracy theories, but because all the evidence is against them.
The evidence on whether this was a conspiracy or not seems inconclusive. Just by probability, probably more likely a random act than an assassination. But the conspiracy theory certainly isn't moon landing level crazy. I don't believe anyone can claim to be certain about this case (besides notorious HRC 1).
It occurred around 4 in the morning, in an area with several recent robberies. He was also pretty banged up apparently, implying a struggle. If you were intending to assassinate someone, you probably wouldn't fight with them first.
But by that reasoning, if the wallet was gone too you'd be saying that's all part of the cover-up. Any evidence you're wrong is only evidence you're right!
That neighborhood already had 7 killing this year (although that was down from 15 for the same period last year). It had 126 robberies in which a gun was used (up from 113). 195 robberies without a gun (up from 181).
> Nothing was taken off his person. No forensic evidence was left behind. Yet the police deemed it a "robbery gone wrong." How can anyone believe this was a robbery gone wrong?
Because it is common for robberies gone wrong to go the way this one did. Most robbers who use a gun have no intention of actually shooting their victim. Their intent is to intimidate the victim so that the victim will not fight back. Rich fought back and got shot. (And getting shot in the back is not unreasonable in those circumstance...if the victim at some point decides to try to get away instead of continuing fighting, the robber might easily fire a couple shots before they consciously realize the fight is over).
When a robbery goes bad like that, and the robber has shot someone, it is often the last thing on their mind to finish the robbery by taking items off the body (or in this case, the wounded, but still conscious victim...Rich died later, at the hospital). They wanted a simple robbery, which would not draw much attention. Now they've got possibly a homicide, and that will draw much more attention than a simple robbery. Every second lingering at the scene is a second that someone attracted by the gunshots might be aiming a camera in their direction, getting a photo of them at the scene.
You will be called a "conspiracy theorist" for claiming knowledge of police forensics and investigations without a substantial reference to back the claim up.
Very strong anti-Wikileaks vibe in this thread. But, why? Someone was murdered (irrespective of if they're a Wikileaks source or not) and Wikileaks is putting money on the table to help get it solved and bringing greater attention to it. In my book trying to help solve murders is a Good Thing™.
I have to say I am surprised, in 2016, how well the Red Scare still works in the US. You say Russia is behind something and the entire american public ignore the actual content of the leaks and talk about how evil Putin is.
I was all for them (sans Assange) until I realized they've become somewhat delusional. You go from outing corporate and government corruption (good), to outing private information for normal people http://gizmodo.com/wikileaks-just-published-tons-of-personal... BAD.
It's because Assange is just offering this reward to create this news story in order to harm Hillary Clinton as much as possible as part of his personal vendetta against her. I respect Manning and Snowden immensely, but Assange now is clearly playing a personal game which happens to be extremely dangerous for the rest of us.
He has actually said that he has a personal problem with Clinton, because she wants him indicted over the Manning leaks, and because she supported intervention in Libya to stop the crackdown on Arab Spring protestors.
The most outspoken anti-Wikileaks people are (in my experience) typically those who hold a security clearance and work for the government or law enforcement in some way. I don't understand their mentality, but I think a lot of them have a sense of patriotism and nationalism working for the government. Therefore, they feel like they're on the opposing side of Wikileaks, and Wikileaks broke all of the rules they've been so dutifully trained to follow, and so naturally they feel threatened by Wikileaks.
Baseless accusations of shillage are not allowed on Hacker News. If you believe you've witnessed this and have evidence, please email [email protected].
The subject at hand is not about Wikileaks' journalistic ethics, rather it is about a reward for a murder of an DNC worker during what police suspect was an "attempted robbery" even though nothing of value was taken from his body. Both the family and Wikileaks are suspicious since he has been identified as the leaker of the DNC emails. I don't see this as Wikileaks grandstanding if he was the true leaker but YMMV.
From the Washington Post: "...Rich was shot twice in the back as he walked to his townhouse about 4:20 a.m. Nothing was taken, but police have said attempted robbery is their leading theory for a motive, noting a spike in robberies in the neighborhood in the preceding weeks. WikiLeaks released the trove of emails later that month, on July 22...."
Wikileaks is the new Fourth Estate. They're doing a job which the old media seems no longer interested in taking on.
It's not responsible to let conspiracy theories about this bubble under the surface without any evidence. Hopefully we will all get some clarity on whether this relates to the DNC leaks or the murders were just coincidental.
A serious question :- In the context of this story, what is the difference between wikileaks offering money for information from a whistle blower and a media outlet offering money for a story (ie chequebook journalism)?
> A serious question :- In the context of this story, what is the difference between wikileaks offering money for information from a whistle blower and a media outlet offering money for a story (ie chequebook journalism)?
I see it more like when the police offer a reward for "information leading to the capture of ...".
There's nothing inherently wrong with the media paying for information. It's the same as paying for hotels and plane tickets to get to and stay at where the story is.
The money issue becomes real when it flows in the other direction. Here's XYZ to run this pro-Clinton piece where XYZ could be something tangible like cash or intangible like future access for quotes/interviews.
> There's nothing inherently wrong with the media paying for information.
I'm tempted to agree, but almost every reputable media outlet does in fact claim that there's sometimes wrong with paying for stories, most in their own ethics handbook.
The common explanation is that "paying for information creates an additional incentive for subjects to lie or embellish the truth. And even if a subject tells the truth, the fact that he’s been paid undermines the journalist’s position as a disinterested observer".
However, this seems rather absolute for what appears to be only mild cause.
One thing is paying for a source for specific information, the other one is accepting a dodgy source and getting paid for that. The flow of money is in the opposite direction.
it's pretty clear from interviews with Assange that Wikileaks is entirely ego driven, and always has been.
When his trial was happening rather than let Wikileaks distance itself from it, like other leaders like this would, he used it as a tool to argue his case to the public.
He has been releasing information out of spite rather than public good. An impartial organization like Wikileaks should exist, that whistleblowers can come to - it just really can't be run like this
But he can leave. He isn't in jail. It is his choice to stay where he is. I really can't see why people insist he is being held there against his will.
I'm not sure it's a position that would be envied as such, I guess everyone is different. I suppose if you were wanted for questioning by police for a serious crime that you wanted to evade and you hadn't got a friendly government seeking positive news coverage to give you a legal loophole to remain at large, you might.
> I suppose if you were wanted for questioning by police for a serious crime that you wanted to evade and you hadn't got a friendly government seeking positive news coverage to give you a legal loophole to remain at large, you might.
There is so much wrong with this, and I suspect you know this, so I am probably wasting my time replying.
>serious crime
I am not sure a he-said/she-said argument about whether someone used a condom is a "serious crime". It's a shitty thing to do obviously but a "serious crime" it is not. The chief public prosecutor even said "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." and three of the four allegations made against him have been dropped.
>that you wanted to evade
Suggesting he actually did the crime. There are only allegations, and coming from a place of questionable integrity.
Additionally, he's not evading any alleged sexual crime, he's evading being extradited and facing capital punishment for political reasons. The UN itself had said his detention was in violation of international law, and Sweden said to uphold the warrant anyway.
He faces allegations of sexual assault - I could be wrong but I'd assume this a serious crime in most places. Do you really not think the alleged crime is serious?
>that you wanted to evade
The Ecuadorian embassy upon last request denied the Swedish prosecution entry to question him. Also, it is gracious of him to permit them to call him over the phone for questioning. Do many formal police interviews occur telephonically? In situations where the defendant is already incarcerated, on remand or perhaps in a military setting I can understand but a civilian? Why should an exception be made?
You aren't wasting your time replying, I am not aiming to troll or wind anyone up. I genuinely agree with my above statements and don't find them wrong, ill-conceived or flippant. It saddens me people down vote my comments just because they disagree with my conclusion.
The downvotes are because your point of view is that of one who conveniently ignores the facts that don't fit the narrative they want to be true.
>The Ecuadorian embassy upon last request denied the Swedish prosecution entry to question him.
This is simply not true. Ecuador actively worked to persuade Sweden to get the prosecutor access to the embassy to interview Assange, and they were successful in doing so.
>Do many formal police interviews occur telephonically? Why should an exception be made?
How many police interviews take place with someone who is under political asylum to be protected from the UNITED STATES for a very real fear of being put to death or tortured because someone is politically motivated to make it happen? How often do they have to interview someone who the UN has officially declared as being illegally and arbitrarily detained? These are all tremendously good reasons for an exception, and obviously Sweden finally agreed since they did go to him in the embassy as a last resort.
How often does Sweden try to extradite someone over or go through these lengths for an allegation (with no evidence) of sexual assault? Never. Why did they make the exception for Assange?
>He faces allegations of sexual assault - I could be wrong but I'd assume this a serious crime in most places. Do you really not think the alleged crime is serious?
I am not going to try to be an apologist for sexual assault. The facts are that the alleged assaults were non-violent and the involved women that had consented to sex with him, just not the exact way in which sex was allegedly had. Not using a condom during sex when you said you would doesn't rank anywhere near murdering someone (a serious crime) in my opinion. It is not an allegation worth trying to fucking extradite someone for questioning who is currently being protected by asylum for political reasons.
A woman going to a police station and saying "he didn't use a condom when I told him to" should not be carte blanche for the nation of Sweden demanding someone be arrested and extradited from anywhere in the world. It is beyond ridiculous and transparently politically motivated and that you would argue otherwise is why you're downvoted.
Not so, and if I wanted I could say the same to yourself.
>This is simply not true.
OK, I'm guessing you must work there? To be that sure would indicate having knowledge that the lay man would not have. Are you able to let us in to any other information that might persuade me to come around to your line of thinking?
>political asylum
Remember - the charge against him currently is that of sexual assault. This isn't a political case, it's one for a crime. He sure wants it to be political as that will help him in his endeavours
>I am not going to try to be an apologist for sexual assault.
I am going to stop this discussion here as I am totally dismayed by your attitude to the seriousness of the crime committed. I can't see anything more positive to come from this thread. I urge you to see this without any bias and put yourself in the shoes of the alleged victim.
>OK, I'm guessing you must work there? To be that sure would indicate having knowledge that the lay man would not have. Are you able to let us in to any other information that might persuade me to come around to your line of thinking?
>The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, may be questioned in London within days about alleged sexual offences after Ecuador indicated it had reached a bilateral deal with Sweden.
>Negotiations began in June this year between Ecuador’s acting foreign minister, Xavier Lasso, and the Swedish justice ministry’s international affairs chief, Anna-Carin Svensson.
"Questioning by police" is an enormous understatement. If Assange leaves the embassy, he will be arrested, extradited to the US, and likely convicted of treason. His fate would at best look something like Chelsea Manning's, and at worst, execution.
> If Assange leaves the embassy, he will be arrested, extradited to the US, and likely convicted of treason.
Almost certainly not. The Constitutional definition of treason in the US is such that it is pretty much never charged, outside of TV shows and movies.
The charges usually discussed in the context of the ongoing US criminal investigation of Assange are violations of the Espionage Act, violations of the CFAA, theft/conversion of US government property, and conspiracy.
OTOH, the government that has actually requested his extradition is Sweden, and not for anything related to national security matters.
As others have pointed out, very unlikely he could be done for treason given he isn't American. But let's not let facts get in the way of some good down voting.
You're right, as a non-American he'd just get sent to Gitmo where he faces indefinite detention without any recourse, without any legal rights or constitutionally required due process, and endless torture+interrogations for the rest of his life. But at least he can't be found guilty of treason in a constitutionally bound American court system by a jury of peers!
> You're right, as a non-American he'd just get sent to Gitmo
While one might criticize Pres. Obama for his lack of success in closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, I don't think there is any indication that the administration is actually adding detainees there (not that Assange would be the type of person who would have been detained there even when new detainees were being added.)
Have any changes been made against him in the US to date? Genuinely don't know the answer and a cursory search I can't see anything obvious.
Also, why would the US not have an extradition request for him open with the UK? The UK would be much more likely to do as the USA pleases than Sweden.
> Have any changes been made against him in the US to date?
There is a publicly disclosed criminal investigation, and several years ago there were reports based on a non-detailed reference in an email in the Stratfor leak (which didn't come from anyone who would have firsthand knowledge) that there was a sealed indictment produced from that investigation, which the Justice Department has flatly denied.
So, apparently not.
> Also, why would the US not have an extradition request for him open with the UK?
If there were charges, there probably would be an extradition request.
More importantly, if there were criminal charges, it would mean going through the regular channels of the criminal justice system. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to treat Assange as an enemy combatant (i.e. no due process).
> More importantly, if there were criminal charges, it would mean going through the regular channels of the criminal justice system.
I'm not sure why you think this would be a problem; the regular criminal justice system has processes for handling classified evidence and is the regular venue for people accused of espionage.
> I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to treat Assange as an enemy combatant (i.e. no due process)
The cases challenging detentions under the Bush Administration pretty clearly established that "unlawful enemy combatant" designation comes with its own due process protections (lawful enemy combatants are Prisoners of War, who have rather extensive legal protections.)
The tinfoil hat crowd was having a field day with this murder before Assange did this, single-handedly moving the "DNC assassination" meme from infowars to outlets like the WaPo.
Assange is an anarchist who wants to burn down the system, and he's really smart. I don't know why Seth Rich was killed, but the only thing Assange's actions say to me is that Assange saw an opportunity to pour gasoline on a fire and he took it. In other words, all the Wikileaks offer brings to this story is a reminder that Assange is really good at stirring stuff up.
If this is a conspiracy and someone knows something about this murder why would $20,000 change their mind if they haven't already reported their knowledge to the police?
Presumably that's not the point. It raises awareness of the death (first I've heard of this). That gets people talking (even without proof) and gets the Wikileaks name on anything that does turn up.
Charitably, it could cause someone to realize that some piece of knowledge is part of a larger issue, but I'd be stunned if that was the real point.
It is straight up weird that Assange is going after Hillary because he's a bit butthurt about her. Its funny when a whistleblowing body is explicitly partisan for personal reasons. Don't have strong feelings one way or the other
Assange has clearly suggested in a interview recently that DNC staffer Seth Rich was indeed the person responsible for the DNC leak. (and not the Russians as the DNC would like us to believe)
I wonder what was Seth Rich's job at DNC ? Technically, could he have leaked those emails ? How can we be sure Assange is dishonest when he implies Seth Rich was the source ? Is there solid proof that Rich was really the victim of a failed robbery and not revenge disguised as robbery ?
>"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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> Is there solid proof that Rich was really the victim of a failed robbery and not revenge disguised as robbery ?
What would "solid proof" look like? Someone confessing? What if that person were paid off?
This is the problem with conspiracy theories: they are impossible to disprove to believers. Any evidence against them just serves to prove how deep the conspiracy goes.
I think that's a bit quick to accuse someone of conspiracy theories.
At the moment, Seth Rich's death consists of a nighttime shooting, no killer caught, and nothing stolen. Police are treating it as a "presumed attempted robbery". If some local criminal is found with the murder weapon and no alibi, I think that would satisfy a lot of people that it was a robbery gone wrong.
Yes, there will be conspiracy theorists, but we're not really at "impossible to disprove" yet. There's still plenty of room for ordinary discussion - it's still an open investigation to the police even. I don't believe the 'revenge' story at all, but I don't think people are crazy for asking "Hey, what was Rich's DNC job? And is there evidence for the robbery story?"
I think that's a bit quick to accuse someone of conspiracy theories.
"The DNC is rigged and Hillary Clinton is closely connected to many mysterious deaths."
Conspiracy theorist!
leaks occur supporting the conspiracy theory
Look, the real issue here is that Assange is meddling with elections! Our corruption is our business alone! Look how he implies conspiracy theories (which we all know are never true). How reckless!!
I used "solid proof" as a placeholder for "more facts, not opinions, indicating that". Some facts indicate it was not a robbery: "They took his life for literally no reason. They didn't finish robbing him, they just took his life,". Others leave robbery as a possibility: "signs of struggle, bruised hands and knees", "walking at 4:20 a.m while talking to the phone".
Well there's no solid proof it wasn't David Icke's lizard people shooting him for knowing to much either. Or a jilted lover, or one of Trump's Second Amendment People, or that he shot himself and then threw the gun down a storm drain before bleeding out.
You've already jumped to "guy getting shot in DC because that shit happens sometimes" as merely a possibility that hasn't been completely ruled out.
He was working on a GOTV project. No, he wouldn't have those emails. And yes, there's evidence of a struggle, so it certainly sounds like there was a mugging, but he put up a fight and was killed -- and so after killing him, the criminal took off without the wallet.
It happened at 4am in Bloomingdale, a recently gentrifying and possibly the robberiest neighborhood in DC right now, during a wave of robberies. The police said there was sign of a struggle, the guy was almost certainly shot in a botched robbery attempt. The conspiracy theories are offensive.
The philosophy that all information should be public is just absurd. There is a reason that the whistle-blowers prior passed their information to reporters, it allowed for certain pieces of information to be redacted.
Sending out the name of every woman voter in Turkey does not benefit anyone. Leaking the private conversation of a man and his daughter does not benefit anyone.
Assange's crazed obsession of having WikiLeaks in the news doesn't help either, it only leads to further politicization and larger claims. The whole site has just turned into a show more than anything.