His Name Was Seth Rich [Part 2: WikiLeaks]

Read Part 1:

His Name Was Seth Rich [Part 1: Introduction]

---

Two months after Seth Rich’s murder, on August 9, 2016, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange appeared on the Dutch television program Nieuwsuur, where he *heavily implied* that Seth Rich had been the source of the leaked DNC emails published by WikiLeaks.

Interviewer: “Do you even know what you’re sitting on?”

Julian Assange: “WikiLeaks never sits on material. Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often very significant risks. There is 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.”

The interviewer interjects: “That was just a robbery I believe, wasn’t it?”

Assange: “No, there is no finding so…”

Interviewer: “What are you suggesting, what are you suggesting?”

Assange: “I am suggesting that our sources are… take risks, and they are… they become concerned… uhh to see things occurring… uhh like that.’’

Interviewer: “But was he one of your sources then… I mean?”

Assange: *nods up and down*

This body language always stuck with me — maybe I’m reading too much into it, but it really feels like he’s sending a non-verbal message. He doesn’t say yes. But he nods — unmistakably. I clipped the 3 seconds where he nods up and down, you be the judge… look closely at his head and eyes when the interviewer asks ‘‘was he one of your sources?’’

Assange: “We don’t comment on who our sources are.”

Interviewer: “Then why make the suggestion, about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?”

Assange: “Because we have to understand… uhh how high the stakes are, in the United States, and that our sources are… you know, our sources face serious risks, that’s why they come to us so we can protect their anonymity.”

Interviewer: “But it’s quite something to suggest a murder… that’s basically what you’re doing.”

Assange: “Well others have suggested… that. So… I’m suggesting that our sources take risks."

WikiLeaks had a decade-long track record of publishing authentic documents without a single proven forgery. In that context, Assange’s remarks on Nieuwsuur stood out. He chose his words carefully, but the implication was unusually direct: Seth Rich was involved in the leak. For a man as cautious and legally conscious as Assange, that level of suggestion wasn’t accidental. It was a signal, made in the only way he could speak openly without putting himself in legal jeopardy.

The same day as that interview, WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of Rich’s killer. This was the first time WikiLeaks had ever posted a reward for a murder.

To this day, WikiLeaks has not confirmed or denied that Seth Rich was their source, but has repeatedly and expressly denied that they came from anywhere else. In an interview with Fox News, Julian Assange told Sean Hannity that Russia was “one thousand percent” not the source of the email hack. “We can say, we have said, repeatedly that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party.”

The media didn’t just ignore WikiLeaks’ revelations; they actively worked to suppress them. CNN’s Chris Cuomo went on live television and outright lied to the American public, claiming it was illegal for regular citizens to even view the leaked documents.

This clip, from Chris Cuomo, is one of the most shameless lies ever broadcast on TV:

“Remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us.”

In the aftermath of the DNC leaks, virtually every major media outlet — from The Washington Post to MSNBC — adopted this coordinated narrative: that Russia had “hacked” the emails and that any other theory was “conspiracy.” Anyone who questioned the mainstream narrative was ridiculed as a crackpot conspiracy theorist and kicked off Twitter.

Five Corroborating Sources

Julian Assange has consistently refused to reveal the identity of any WikiLeaks source. However, several individuals connected to Assange have come forward.

1. Gavin MacFadyen (via Fox News)

In May 2017, Fox News published a report based on an anonymous federal investigator who claimed that Seth Rich had contacted WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a close associate/mentor of Assange. The Fox reporter who broke the story claimed to have spent 10 months investigating Rich’s murder, but the network retracted the story shortly afterward. MacFadyen died of lung cancer in October 2016, which meant he could never be questioned about it.

‘‘A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich’s computer generated within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen.’’

https://web.archive.org/web/20170516133954/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/16/slain-dnc-staffer-had-contact-with-wikileaks-investigator-says.html

2. Craig Murray

In late 2016, former UK ambassador Craig Murray said he had personally met the leaker in a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, and that the leaker’s motive was “disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation” and “the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.”

‘‘I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian. It’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack. The two are different things.”

Assange has never contradicted Murray’s account.

The FBI never questioned Murray.

“Well, any journalist worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first consider access,” Murray said again in December 2016. “Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously.”

3. Ellen Ratner

A third corroborating source is Ellen Ratner, a journalist and sister of the late Michael Ratner, one of WikiLeaks’ American attorneys. Speaking publicly, she stated, “I spent three hours with Julian Assange on Saturday at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. One thing he did say was the leaks were not from the Russians. They were an internal source from the Hillary campaign.”

4. Seymour Hersh

A fourth source is Seymour Hersh, one of the most respected Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists in American history.

In a leaked audio recording from 2017, Hersh claimed to have inside knowledge from a trusted FBI contact who told him that Seth Rich had made contact with WikiLeaks. Hersh described the FBI’s report on Rich’s laptop as “a narrative of how he had reached out to WikiLeaks,” and said it was compiled within days of the murder. “[Seth] offered a sample, an extensive sample, of emails.’’

‘‘About [Seth Rich], I'll tell you what I know. What I know comes off an FBI report. Don't ask me how; you could figure out I've been around long enough.

..

Here's what nobody knows, what I'm telling you now … [Seth] makes contact with WikiLeaks. That's in his computer, and he makes contact ... He had submitted a series of documents, of emails, some juicy emails from the DNC … he offered a sample, an extensive sample, you know, I'm sure, of emails.’’

— Seymour Hersh

Hersh initially backed away from this leak when it appeared, dismissing it as ‘‘gossip’’, but has never denied the authenticity of the tape or disavowed the substance of what he said. During a sworn deposition in 2020, Hersh then maintained it was all true.

5. Kim Dotcom

A fifth (and somewhat less credible) source to step forward was Kim Dotcom, an eccentric internet entrepreneur who has spent much of his career building platforms for anonymous file sharing, meaning he’s an expert on leaking files.

Kim stated bluntly:

“I knew Seth Rich. I know he was the WikiLeaks source. I was involved. I’m meeting with my legal team on Monday. I will issue a statement about Seth Rich. I was asked to do this by his family. I have evidence that confirms he was the source.”

Kim offered to testify under oath to the U.S. Congress. His offer was ignored, and the FBI never even interviewed him.

None of the five individuals—MacFadyen, Murray, Ratner, Hersh, or Dotcom—had any clear motive to fabricate their statements. Several of them risked reputational damage or legal consequences to speak out. Not one of them has recanted. Taken together, they form a chorus of corroboration that directly contradicts the “Russian hack” narrative pushed by U.S. intelligence agencies and the media.

The FBI has not interviewed any of them.

These weren’t anonymous internet cranks — they were respected journalists, political insiders, and direct associates of Julian Assange. At least three of them claimed to have had firsthand contact with Seth Rich or his intermediary. Yet not a single one was subpoenaed, questioned, or investigated. The failure to question or even acknowledge these witnesses highlights a willful neglect at the highest levels. At best, it’s dereliction of duty. At worst, it’s treason.

Subscribe for Part 3 — coming soon.