
WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder - adamnemecek
http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-20000-seth-rich-dnc-2016-8
======
dvcc
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.

~~~
patrickaljord
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.

edit: grammar

~~~
mtanski
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.

~~~
michaelt
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?

~~~
specialist
Nicely crafted analogy. I don't see it.

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").

------
chatmasta
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?

~~~
imron
> 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.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/public-editor/liz-spayd-
th...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/public-editor/liz-spayd-the-new-york-
times-public-editor.html?_r=1)

~~~
whamlastxmas
>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.

------
Someone1234
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.

~~~
tstactplsignore
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.

~~~
pmyjavec
The guy has practically sacrificed his life and you think he is going to offer
$20,000 just to hurt Hillary Clinton?

He is a smart guy and I'm sure if his intention was to get revenge on her he
might be able to come up with something a little more creative no?

~~~
Frondo
Yes, he's admitted in interviews that he has a vendetta against Clinton. Smart
people act impulsively and irrationally, too, of course.

------
SCAQTony
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...."

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-
safety/wikileaks...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-
safety/wikileaks-offers-reward-in-killing-of-dnc-staffer-in-
washington/2016/08/09/f84fcbf4-5e5b-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html)

~~~
Trill-I-Am
Who's identified him as the leaker?

~~~
SCAQTony
FOX News video of Assange implying it:
[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-
implies-m...](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-
murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html)

------
lhnz
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.

------
yitchelle
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)?

~~~
koolba
> 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.

~~~
michael_fine
> 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.

------
Vermeulen
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

~~~
skylan_q
Yes, being cooped up in an embassy for years while state actors hold phony
charges against you threatening your arrest must be for the thrill of it.

~~~
alex_hitchins
He can leave at any time remember. The locks are on the inside of his door.

EDIT: Awesome! Downvoted with no comment!

~~~
skylan_q
If he leaves, he goes to jail.

~~~
alex_hitchins
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.

~~~
skylan_q
Yes, you're right. I suppose it is a very comfortable position to be in and we
should envy him.

Thanks!

~~~
alex_hitchins
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.

~~~
xlxlxlx
The post you replied to was being sarcastic.

"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.

~~~
alex_hitchins
Oh, I see.

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.

~~~
whamlastxmas
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!

~~~
alex_hitchins
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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

~~~
whamlastxmas
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).

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.)

------
jonstokes
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.

~~~
des429
If you dont know why Seth Rich was killed then how can you call anyone with
their own theory a 'tinfoil hat crowd'?

------
sleepyhead
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?

~~~
Bartweiss
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.

------
billwilliams
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

------
DominikR
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)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg)

He was shot dead in a "robbery" where nothing was stolen from him.

------
parfe
Wikileaks, and Assange specifically, keep implying Seth Rich leaked them DNC
emails to attention whore on his death. Really disgusting behavior.

~~~
leaveyou
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 ?

~~~
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...](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-
murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html)

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.

~~~
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.

------
superswordfish
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.

------
cmdrfred
There sure is a hell of a lot of smoke around the DNC this year for there to
not be any fire.

------
tdb7893
Assange is one of those celebrities you hope you never meet in real life

