It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DanteGaland
WAITING...
For Wikileaks THEMSELVES to produce solid evidence that Seth was "their guy".
WHY can't WL do that?
It would sure put things to rest...
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
originally posted by: DanteGaland
WAITING...
For Wikileaks THEMSELVES to produce solid evidence that Seth was "their guy".
WHY can't WL do that?
It would sure put things to rest...
Because then not a single person would ever leak them anything again. They are protecting their sources so that hopefully they don't get smoked like Seth Rich did, and to keep their integrity.
I feel like most people would want to be exposed as leakers if they wound up murdered with no suspects. I would actually insist on it.
I don't think it would be much of a deterrent.
***
ETA: I mean the point of withholding a source's identity is to protect the source...not the possible suspects in the source's murder. If Seth was the leaker, then WL appears to be protecting anyone negatively affected by the leaks by withholding Seth's name as a source.
JMO.
originally posted by: Alien Abduct
But the thing is Wikileaks can not confirm he is because it could put Seth's family in danger.
Link
According to Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police reports, officers patrolling the Bloomingdale neighborhood heard gunshots at around 4:20 a.m. on the morning of July 10, 2016. Officers discovered a “conscious and breathing” Rich at 2100 Flagler Place NW.
originally posted by: HorizonFall
a reply to: DanteGaland
Because they don't openly reveal who their sources are. Ever. Whether the source is alive or dead does not matter. This is their code of conduct. Wouldn't be a very reliable leaker source if they didn't. Why is this so difficult for people to understand?
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Jonjonj
For all we know, Seth instructed Wikileaks to reveal his identity if he wound up murdered. I know I would. And let's face it, Assange has his 'dead man's switch' in case something happens to him. It's not like Assange doesn't know that there has to be a plan for occasions where leakers are murdered.
Eh, there's no compelling reason to put total faith & trust in Julian Assange/Wikileaks. I am not gullible enough for that.
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Jonjonj
For all we know, Seth instructed Wikileaks to reveal his identity if he wound up murdered. I know I would. And let's face it, Assange has his 'dead man's switch' in case something happens to him. It's not like Assange doesn't know that there has to be a plan for occasions where leakers are murdered.
Eh, there's no compelling reason to put total faith & trust in Julian Assange/Wikileaks. I am not gullible enough for that.
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Grambler
I totally agree. We do not know. All I can do is apply what I think is most logical. But I do not claim to know. He may have said never to tell even if he winds up dead. It's very hard to swallow though...that he would leak damaging info about the DNC but want them protected should he wind up murdered...
I just don't see the logic in keeping it a secret at this point, if he was the leaker.
I don't trust WL for other reasons though. As I said, they are inherently suspicious to me.
I just don't see the logic in keeping it a secret at this point, if he was the leaker.
originally posted by: DanteGaland
WAITING...
For Wikileaks THEMSELVES to produce solid evidence that Seth was "their guy".
WHY can't WL do that?
It would sure put things to rest...