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.

 

Audio: Seymour Hersh States Seth Rich Was WikiLeaks Source

page: 6
59
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   

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...


WL thinks they would lose credibility, and they have a good point...HOWEVER, I would forgive them 100% in this case wouldn't you? I think almost everyone would. I agree with you.




posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What you would do is irrelevant. That's not what Wikileaks does.

They. Do. Not. Reveal. Their. Sources. Period.

They can make strong suggestions. They can point us in the obvious direction (which they have). Everything short of confirming their source's identity. If they change now they risk losing potential future leakers. It is to ensure the safety of not only the leaker themselves but the families as well. It's not that hard to comprehend...
edit on 2-8-2017 by HorizonFall because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: HorizonFall

Again, I disagree.

To me, they appear to be protecting Seth's murderer by floating the idea that the leaker may have been Seth without actually confirming or denying it. And that makes me suspicious of Wikileaks and their loyalties.

ETA: If Seth was the leaker, that is.

ETA2: And I comprehend your argument, just fine. I just disagree with it.
edit on 8/2/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

It would certainly clear things up...



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: HorizonFall

They've ALREADY lost MASSIVE credibility.

Do you remember the events of last Sept/Oct? All the WL Lawyers "dying"? The INTERNET being cut? The insurance files with non-matching hashes now? The UTTER LACK of ANY PGP-signed messages?

And let's not forget the deadman's switch going off and the KEY hidden in the blockchain...and all the DDOS attacks on people trying to find it...

WL has been straight up compromised. There was literally a war between OUR IC and Russia's IC. Russia appears to have TAKEN OVER and has a metaphorical gun to Assange's head. He is NOT calling the shots.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   

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.


You might insist on it but it wouldn't be your choice, especially if you were dead.

I do think as another poster has pointed out that Wikileaks has all but said directly that Seth Rich was the leaker which is pretty good however in this case I'm sitting on the fence leaning your way.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Assange has his dead man's switch. I would think he would recognize that Seth's 'dead man's switch' is revealing his name as a source if he wound up murdered.

..IF he was the leaker, that is. And therein lies the problem, again, Wikileaks has insinuated he was, but unless they confirm it, then all it does is fan a bunch of frustrating flames.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   
WAIT I GOT IT!


Okay Seth is the leaker. So why not just say he was the leaker because he is already dead right?
In fact some other posters think Wikileaks should just go ahead and confirm Seth as the leaker.

But the thing is Wikileaks can not confirm he is because it could put Seth's family in danger. HOWEVER if through a legitimate investigation it was found that the DNC had ties with Seth Riches murder the DNC would then be exposed and any smidgen of retaliation would prove fatal for the DNC. Wikileaks could THEN confirm Seth as the leaker without fear of backlash against Seth Riches family and thereby drive in the final nails in the coffin of the DNC.

Now it makes sense why Wikileaks has such a vested interest in getting to the bottom of the murder of Seth Rich! Why else would they offer so much cash for information leading to the solving of the Seth Rich murder??

What do you guys think?



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

But the thing is Wikileaks can not confirm he is because it could put Seth's family in danger.



I just don't see how it puts his family in danger by divulging him as the leaker, if he was the leaker. In fact, I think it makes it more dangerous for them by withholding that information.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

And let me add this, too. According to Seth's dad, one of the last things Seth said to his girlfriend on the phone was, "I got heat."

So, he's walking home after drinking into the wee hours. He's publicly intoxicated...even if he wasn't falling down drunk. "Heat" is slang typically used to refer to police and would seem to be what he would have meant by that comment. Did Seth get off the phone because he saw police following him (on foot, in a car)?

If so, he was shot immediately after that.

Also of note, it was first reported that the responding officers in the neighborhood heard the gunshots:


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.
Link

But when the police report was released, it says the CIC system reported the shots to police.


Honestly, I can't help but wonder if Seth was gunned down by corrupt police officers. His watchband was torn. Could he have been cuffed, beaten, and shot?

I think it would behoove everyone and be in the interest of everyone's safety, if WL would confirm or deny that Seth was the leaker.

If he was the leaker, we may have bigger problems than most people could even dream of, IMO.


edit on 8/2/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   

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?


It isn't difficult to understand at all. For some though it is difficult to accept. They want the control. It is the "tell me now!" Syndrome.

Wikileaks is going to continue to protect its sources, and those who demand answers can essentially f*** off.


edit on 2-8-2017 by Jonjonj because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   

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.


I don't blame you for not putting total faith in anybody. We should all be as diligent, and demand proof before we believe something.

I have yet to see proof Rich was the leaker, or that Russia was. It could have been either of those, or someone else.

However, I don't think Wikileaks not disclosing their source proves they are shady or anything.

For all we know, Rich told them to not disclose his involvement even if he died. As you say, we don't know what they agreed on, or even if they ever spoke.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   

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.


I actually wouldn't count you among the crowd of demanders anyway.

I personally trust the integrity of wikileaks as an entity, you don't. No harm there. I won't dismiss the information from wikileaks because there is no source.

And I certainly won't use the Seth Rich case to somehow undermine wikileaks.

The truth will out eventually. Let's see what comes of the Awan angle.




posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   

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 see no problem with not trusting any source without seeing the proof yourself, so you will get no argument from me.

As for Rich, this is just my opinion, but I would guess the most likely scenario with him dealing with Wikileaks was that the subject of what to do if he was killed never came up.

Wikileaks has a standing policy of never, under any circumstances divulging their sources. So if there was no a special conversation as to what to do if he died, Assange would be forced to honor the standard agreement, which is never divulge.

Also, it is quite likely that Assange, like the rest of us, doesn't know for sure who killed Rich. Perhaps if he was a 100% positive it was the DNC, then he would divulge that Rich was the leaker. But it could have been a robbery or any number of things. In that case, if Assange released Rich as the leaker, he has effectively just outed a source for no good reason.

Maybe thats why he released the reward money to find out about Rich's killer. He legitimately doesn'tkknow the truth, but if it is proven to him it was the DNC, then he will admit Rich was the leaker.

Just my thoughts.
edit on 2-8-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye




I just don't see the logic in keeping it a secret at this point, if he was the leaker. 


If they revealed the source, regardless of the source's apparent situation, then wikileaks would simply cease to be.

There would be no way back from that.




posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

All Assange would have to say is that Seth requested his name to be revealed if he wound up murdered and he's just honoring their agreement.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   

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...

I am surprised you care about solid evidence.
We've seen none that Russia hacked the DNC but that has not stopped the 'conclusions'.

That said I agree with your point - at the moment claims are for at least two scenarios and neither have produced the solid evidence required to draw a conclusion.
edit on 2/8/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I think it's possible that Seth was the leaker but Assange doesn't know that. But, in that case, I don't think it's right to insinuate that he was.

Did you read my comment above: Link

I don't understand why more people aren't concerned that it was actually corrupt police officers that shot Seth.


edit on 8/2/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join