He's unreliable when he talks about the FBI source, but he's reliable when he makes Fox News look bad. Y'all are fucking magic.
That's not what people here have been saying.
It is. When he fed one source the FBI story, he was unreliable. When he's quoted in CNN, people take it as true. This lawsuit? We love Rod Wheeler again.
No.
At the risk of speaking for other members here, the position taken is: He is unreliable in all instances.
Your opponents never put any stock in his reliability. You did, by pointing to his claims as reason to think the whole "seth rich conspiracy theory" had substance. So his changing stories are being thrown at you for the absurdity of you giving him any credence in the first place, not because anyone here suddenly considered him to be reliable once his story changed.
The story starts with Assange heavily suggesting that Rich was his source.
Wheeler came in later, stating there was a anon FBI source. Then anon sources for other outlets denied it (in a way). Then Wheeler told CNN it all came from Fox News, which suddenly everyone believed from Wheeler here. This NPR story is all based on Wheeler's Lawsuit. Wheeler and his lawyer are the source there. The lawsuit is the source.
I gave Seth Rich being the leak credence. I never said Wheeler was reliable. I still don't think he's reliable. However, I'm not waffling on that in that I fully believe everything he says in what report and then fully disbelieve what he says in another instance. To bugger on about this thing as this thread has requires alternately believing Wheeler and not believing Wheeler.
You can't wiggle out of this.
And, btw, its being claimed that the second audio file stating the FBI saw Rich's emails and him contacting wikileaks is Seymour Hersh.
http://bigleaguepolitics.com/audio-seymour-hersh-states-seth-rich-wikileaks-source/So I'm basing it now on Assange, Hersh and his FBI source. Wheeler is irrelevant to the claim.
