They're coming on thick and strong with attempts to discredit the source because the source is seriously lacking in credibility. I'd already spotted and commented on the bizarre UN shenanigans earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12737648 The fact that the sole source is a dating company press release in which they claim to be a United Nations signatory and member, and that they accuse the UN of conspiring with Assange and the Bahamas police, should've been enough justification not to take everything as gospel. Unfortunately, Daily Kos are keen to attack Assange and not so keen on fact checking and research, as are Mrs Clinton's Twitter supporters.

>They're coming on thick and strong with attempts to discredit the source because the source is seriously lacking in credibility

the way they could do this correctly is to contradict assange's claims with evidence... do that, and if their evidence is valid, assange's claims collapse.

but they aren't doing that; they can't do that.

here is the recipe upcoming from the clinton campaign:

1. attack source

2. escalate attacks on source

3. deny claims of source categorically

4. deny context of facts that source puts forth

5. deny specifics of facts that source puts forth

6. deny involvement of high level people

7. throw scapegoats

8. deny witting involvement of high level people

9. admit item numbers 3 through 8, sequentially, as separate steps

10. media "loses attention" of the story before reaching the point where high level people admit that the allegations of the source are correct

this cycle will take a while, maybe a year or so.

There's a material difference between questioning a sources's credibility and trying to discredit it.

I agree with you completely. My comment was written after discussing this elsewhere on the internet where the context was that people are trying to discredit wikileaks and Assange as a source. I've edited my post to reflect that.

None of the source's information can be verified. Their information needs to be able to be verified to even be considered a 'source'.

The original dailykoss article cites a report, removed by the UN for defamatory reasons, that only exists now on google cache.

toddandclare.com registered name also matches:

equal-pac.org (2014) (Other equalpac website is Hillary backed)

Other Todds (?) but still interesting: http://viewdns.info/reversewhois/?q=Todd+Hammond

Not only that, according to Buzzfeed they got in touch with the Bahama police force and no complainant ever came forward: https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-bizarre-story-o... (The Buzzfeed article is a good summary of the problems with the allegations in general.)

Then there's this: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/gmail/qnZsZSH...

PC SECURITIES Scam

Has same address as domainsitestats.com/ratings-reviews/toddandclare.com/

Address:10685-B Hazelhurst Dr. #10138 Houston, TX 77043 USA

All very very shady.

To paraphrase Tyrion Lannister, we're not questioning the credibility of the source, we're denying its existence.

"Toddandclare" is, rather blatantly, a front company for some organization. There is no doubt of this fact. They probably want to be able to claim that "a UN conspiracy is silencing them", but their attempt to set this up is so ludicrous, I'm having trouble imagining who would even think of such a thing.

To not paraphrase Tyrion Lannister because I'm about the only person in existence who hasn't watched the show, if the attempt to set this up is wilfully ludicrous, the most obvious people to think of are probably people that don't want you to think there's any basis behind any of the more longstanding and somewhat similar rumours floating around about the purported setup victim.

And probably want you to go to Wikileaks.com and look for embarrassing stuff about Hillary Clinton instead.