> So what you're saying is that he hasn't named the real leaker and hasn't made any firm claims on who the real leaker is?
I believe the specific portion most people would find troubling in that article is:
“We're not saying that Seth Rich's death necessarily is connected to our publications – that's something that needs to be established,” said Assange. “But if there is any question about a source of WikiLeaks being threatened, then people can be assured that this organization will go after anyone who may have been involved in some kind of attempt to coerce or possibly, in this kill a potential source.”
> Assange is not responsible for the conspiracy theories that other people generate from his information.
Well, that depends. There are definitely ways I could purposefully word information that would give people a strong impression I was trying to communicate something without saying it.
Do I believe Assange made any factual statements here that the staffer was a wikileaks source and he was killed because of the leak? No.
Do I believe he was trying to insinuate himself and Wikileaks into a narrative where he knew they had nothing to do with it, possibly wasting resources that could have gone towards finding the actual killer, and lending credence to a narrative that we now know (to my knowledge) was untrue? Yes.
That's not illegal. It does affect how people perceive him and his endeavors though.
