I dunno, I guess that depends. Do they actively and publicly fuel a conspiracy theory that Trump had someone murdered like they did with the Clintons and Seth Rich?
That’s just from people intentionally reading into things that weren’t there and tricking idiots into believing it.
That’s a very weird thing to specifically be calling out compared to all the other real obvious dirt that was in the emails too. Like stopping Bernie Sanders and literally helping insane GOP candidates.
So the odd thing about that is it specifically says Julian Assange says they (wiki leaks) won’t reveal their sources, and the rumors of it being Seth rich were propogated by the long list of bad actors.
The Muller report says it damning about the timing, but I don’t see Julian Assange himself saying it was Seth Rich at all.
Unbidden, Assange brought up the case of Seth Rich. When asked directly whether Rich was a source, Assange said “we don’t comment on who our sources are”
From the interview in question, Assange said (and this is a direct quote): “Wikileaks never sits on material. Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often at very significant risk. There’s a 27 year old that 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.”
Then, the interviewer asks Assange: “what are you suggesting?”
Assange replies, “I am suggesting that our sources take risks…”
Like, you don’t have to be a fucking Mensa member to draw a logical inference about what Assange is suggesting in regards to Sith Rich. You say “the rumors of it being Sith Rich were propagated by the long list of bad actors.” One of those bad actors was Julian Assange.
Not gonna lie, I expected you to double down and say that Assange’s comments don’t actually suggest he was insinuating Seth Rich was killed for leaking information to Wikileaks. So, have an upvote I guess.
It sure does seem like he intentionally was misleading about it from the context, I generally supported Assange and other whistleblowers because these kinds of things need to come to light, but yeah that sure is sus.
I dunno, I guess that depends. Do they actively and publicly fuel a conspiracy theory that Trump had someone murdered like they did with the Clintons and Seth Rich?
That’s just from people intentionally reading into things that weren’t there and tricking idiots into believing it.
That’s a very weird thing to specifically be calling out compared to all the other real obvious dirt that was in the emails too. Like stopping Bernie Sanders and literally helping insane GOP candidates.
Play with fire and get burned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_statements
So the odd thing about that is it specifically says Julian Assange says they (wiki leaks) won’t reveal their sources, and the rumors of it being Seth rich were propogated by the long list of bad actors.
The Muller report says it damning about the timing, but I don’t see Julian Assange himself saying it was Seth Rich at all.
From the wikipedia article:
From the interview in question, Assange said (and this is a direct quote): “Wikileaks never sits on material. Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often at very significant risk. There’s a 27 year old that 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.”
Then, the interviewer asks Assange: “what are you suggesting?”
Assange replies, “I am suggesting that our sources take risks…”
Like, you don’t have to be a fucking Mensa member to draw a logical inference about what Assange is suggesting in regards to Sith Rich. You say “the rumors of it being Sith Rich were propagated by the long list of bad actors.” One of those bad actors was Julian Assange.
Ahh thanks for the context.
Not gonna lie, I expected you to double down and say that Assange’s comments don’t actually suggest he was insinuating Seth Rich was killed for leaking information to Wikileaks. So, have an upvote I guess.
It sure does seem like he intentionally was misleading about it from the context, I generally supported Assange and other whistleblowers because these kinds of things need to come to light, but yeah that sure is sus.