Wikileaks Is Once More Using Murdered Seth Rich To Play Games

Just when things couldn't get any stranger, Wikileaks tweeted this today:



If you follow the link, you'll arrive at a page with screenshots from a purported Twitter DM exchanges between the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter account and a Playboy playmate from the 80's, Robbin Young, who also apparently goes by some sort of "erotic" alias, Marilyn Moanroe™. The allged exchanges are mostly a bunch of blabber riddled with hearts and emojis and awkwardness like this:

wow, u r making me breath harder" "ur soul's so pure and unspoiled it beckons me

That leads into some sort of quasi-cyber sex involving a "poem" about fellatio (Ms. Young also purports that she's an author of erotica). There's also a bit about how Ms. Young is a Trump supporter because she developed a hatred of Clinton while following the Benghazi "scandal" coverage. If you can make it through all that, you'll arrive at the "money shot" :

so, send me another private picture of yours if u please, it'll help me relax

Oh sorry, that wasn't it. This is what I was looking for:

his name is seth, he was my whistleblower

and

i'd be greatful to u if there's any chance u can help me find the person who can find the evidence seth was assasinated

Clearly Wikileaks, by promoting this alleged Twitter DM exchange, is once more insinuating that Seth Rich was murdered for leaking DNC emails.

So let's get this straight: "Guccifer 2.0" (who has always maintained that the the DNC was hacked, by "him") posted to a WP blog, tweeted to the world and corresponded with multiple journalists — without ever bringing up the murdered Seth Rich — and then allegedly confessed this bombshell to a woman who calls herself a "Bond Girl" because she was "Girl in Flower Shop" in For Your Eyes Only?

Give me a break.

1. If Seth Rich was indeed the source of the DNC emails (couldn't have been the source of the Podesta emails mind you), why in the world would he blow the whistle to a random Eastern European with no ties to the media?

2. If Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails, why wouldn't "Guccifer 2.0" have shared this with the journalists he corresponded with, tweeted about it or posted it to the blog? He DM'd members of the media. He emailed links to "DC Leaks" to Buzzfeed and The Intercept. He corresponded with The Observer — hell, "he" gave an interview to Vice — and nothing?

3. Perhaps most importantly, why is Wikileaks coyly tweeting this? If Seth Rich was the source, why not come out and say it? What's with the passive-aggressive insuations?

This brings me to a glaring problem with the game Wikileaks is playing.

According to the WL narrative, they have nothing to do with "Guccifer 2.0" and the "DC Leaks" site and it's the media that has been conflating them. Take a look at what Assange told Hannity back on Dec 15th (transcript from Reddit):

Hannity: Yea. Do you think there could be a separate operation within the Russian government, separate and apart from the information you have at Wikileaks?

Assange: Okay, so this is interesting. There's a conflation between the three things. Wikileaks publications, and I've told you what James Clapper says about them. They can't see how the Russian's transfer them to us, etc. They have impact everyone's talking about. Alleged hacks of the US voting system. You've just mentioned the DHS for example. And other publications appearing on the internet that basically almost no one has heard of, that didn't have any impact in the election, in fact might have had the opposite impact. So in this last category there's a site called DC Leaks and another, a Wordpress site run by a guy calling himself Guccifer 2. Now, who are behind these, we don't know.

Hannity: Do you know these people?

Assange: No. And there was a couple of publications also by The Hill and by Gawker, and the Smoking Gun that claimed that their documents came from, I think from Guccifer, maybe this DC Leaks. So those look very much like that they're the Russian's. But in some ways they seem very amateur, and they look too much like it. And so this is what, far from me to quote John Bolton who I think said I should be executed or something, but he has said correctly that if something looks so much like it is meant to be the Russian's, then maybe someone wants you to think that.

If you want to hear the original exchange, it's at about the 18 minute mark in the YouTube video. You can also see that Assange defenders have been pushing this idea that the media was unfairly conflating Guccifer 2.0/DC Leaks and the Wikileaks release: Glenn Greenwald, Robert Romano.

Romano goes so far as to claim that there's no evidence tying "Guccifer 2.0" and Wikileaks except that's not true either. From the the Guccifer 2.0 blog's first post on June 16th, 2016:

The main part of the papers, thousands of files and mails, I gave to Wikileaks. They will publish them soon.

And from a July 22nd tweet:

But wait, let's take a look at statements in another interview that Assange gave, this time with Fox New's Megyn Kelly at the end of August:

He referred to him as a "potential" and "alleged" source tonight on The Kelly File.

"We're very interested in anything that might be a threat to alleged WikiLeak sources," he said. "We're not saying that Seth Rich's death necessarily is connected to our publication. That's something that has to be established. But if there's 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 case, kill a potential source."

Kelly said that it sounded as if he was suggesting that a man who leaked information to WikiLeaks was then murdered.

"If there's someone who's potentially connected to our publication, and that person has been murdered in suspicious circumstances, it doesn't necessarily mean that the two are connected," Assange replied. "But it is a very serious matter ... That type of allegation is very serious, and it's taken very seriously by us."

Evasive non-response much? Who is really doing the conflation here? Wikileaks is more than happy to have people believing on the one hand that Seth Rich's murder is connected to him leaking documents to Wikileaks. In fact, millions of people, including quite a few posters on ATS, believe that Seth Rich was murdered for leaking documents to WL. But on the other hand, they've been pushing a narrative that maybe "he's" a Russian spy but it doesn't matter because they don't have anything to do with "Guccifer 2.0" and the only reason anyone believes otherwise is the conflation of media outlets.

Keep in mind that the above interview was from August 10th, the day after WL offered a $20,000 reward for information about Seth Rich's murder. If you look at the purported DM exchange, the messages in question are from August 25th, sixteen days after WL dropped that first insinuation.

Wikileaks is clearly playing games. According to WL, the possibly-Russian "Guccifer 2.0" was lying when "he" claimed to be WL's source but when it comes to supporting their false narrative that Seth Rich was killed for leaking emails, they're happy to push this purported DM exchange.

The problem is that if you believe what Wikileak's clearly wants you to believe now, you have to also believe that they were lying in the first place.

Very nicely presented thread, will be back to read later. Thank you S+F

a reply to: theantediluvian

If in any way true, in a round-about way, wiki leaks has done what is has always promised not to – reveal its sources. But playing games is likely.

Clinton having Seth Rich murdered for leaking is no game.

You are the one playing silly games.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Didn't see this in your article but this link was tweeted today by Wikileaks as well from the same, much larger article which purports to call Guccifer 2.0 out as a fraud.

I wonder who Warren Flood is, and how Gucci 2.0 was able to modify the metadata only 30 minutes after he created it.

g-2.space...

Based on everything I've seen from the wiki-links, it seems they are asserting that Gucci 2.0 may be a creation of the DNC or Clinton campaign in order to discredit the DNC leaks, and later build upon the Russian narrative.

It leads me back to wondering why the DNC would hire a 3rd party to look into the hacking instead of allowing the FBI to look.


I do like how you create a post but decide to not dig deeper. Bias much? Or are you afraid of what you might find?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
So let's get this straight: "Guccifer 2.0" (who has always maintained that the the DNC was hacked, by "him") posted to a WP blog, tweeted to the world and corresponded with multiple journalists — without ever bringing up the murdered Seth Rich — and then allegedly confessed this bombshell to a woman who calls herself a "Bond Girl" because she was "Girl in Flower Shop" in For Your Eyes Only?

Give me a break.

Quit being a player hater and take a break. It's on me.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Clinton having Seth Rich murdered for leaking is no game.

You are the one playing silly games.

Cool story.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

If you are speaking to me, it is because I have been reading this stuff all day and do not consider myself savvy enough to make an evaluation. What you stated is what I got from it as well. I have made other posts into such subjects. Otherwise I believe the fact the OP's post came from a larger article was relevant.

I am not looking to derail this thread so you feel free to make a thread about it if you wish.

a reply to: liveandlearn

If WL really believes that Guccifer 2.0 is a fraud, then why would they direct people to the purported DMs that suggest that Seth Rich was murdered for providing material to Guccifer 2.0?

What is the intent there?

The same question goes for Adam Carter (assuming that's his name). His claims are largely based on the appearance of Warren Flood's name in the metadata of 5 documents with a creation time that is half an hour before the modification times that he alleges to be the insertion of fake Russian fingerprints. His hypothesis seems to be that the Clinton campaign invented Guccifer 2.0:

(7) With Motive & Means - Those More Likely Linked to G2 than Russians

It seems like there's a good chance Warren Flood has involvement to some degree but even if that's true - he personally had nothing to lose due to the emails, so, who would really be behind such a scheme?

The more thought I've given it, it seems most probable that one particular group would have been particularly desperate precisely at that time, for the emergence of a narrative about Russian hackers to discredit proper leaks / justify claims that all leaks are 'probably doctored' and they will have very likely known Flood too.

That group is the Clinton Campaign.

Why would part of this hypothetical deception involve two weeks of flirting and quasi-cybersex with Robbin Young during which this hypothetical Clinton operative contradicts the narrative, fingers Seth Rich as a whistleblower and alleges he was murdered for providing leaked material to Guccifer 2.0 between expressing his undying love and asking for nudes?

You have to see how that makes no sense at all.

His speculation about the metadata is only one of a number of possible scenarios to explain what is observed and not even the most likely. It also seems odd that somebody sophisticated enough to insert fake Russian fingerprints would alter the modification metadata but not the creation.

None of this really changes what I've said in the OP except to suggest that both WL and the author have even less reason to believe that the DM exchange and claims made in it are real which makes them look all the worse for promoting the purported DMs, insinuating that Seth Rich was assassinated.

a reply to: liveandlearn

Let me point out one other thing that is ignored by the author of that post but noted by the author of a Medium article he linked:

c) Guccifer2 was a rushed emergency response by the DNC or by CrowdStrike (aka cyber arm of the Atlantic Council) or both, after the announcement of impending leaks, to create a ‘deception story’ providing narrative weighted links between the ‘Russian malware’ found in the DNC servers, and Wikileaks. And ultimately, to render the prospect of an independent leaker irrelevant. This is unlikely as Guccifer2.0’s possible links to DCLeaks.com and apt28 phishing infrastructure might imply a much grander anti-russian-centric-conspiracy that had no problems targeting Hillary’s campaign. [dcleaks registered on April 19th, CrowdStrike on the payroll May 5th]

Part of this emergency response by the DNC theory as put forth by Carter is that it was a rush job due to Assange's June 12th announcement about pending releases. In other words, the DNC trying to get ahead of the release and cast doubt on the authenticity of the emails/frame Russia/whatever. I'm fairly certain the DNC doesn't have a time machine and it doesn't make much sense that they would have registered a domain in anticipation of a Wikileaks release three months later.

I don't even understand what you're getting at anymore.

So... Trump is colluding with the Russians, WL is colluding with the Russians, Puscifer 5000 is a Russian, the Russians killed Seth Rich and crucified Jesus...

Wtf, dude?

originally posted by: NthOther
I don't even understand what you're getting at anymore.

So... Trump is colluding with the Russians, WL is colluding with the Russians, Puscifer 5000 is a Russian, the Russians killed Seth Rich and crucified Jesus...

Wtf, dude?

And now even Bond girls have turned Russian agent traitor.

We're all DOOOMED!

a reply to: Wardaddy454

I wonder who Warren Flood is, and how Gucci 2.0 was able to modify the metadata only 30 minutes after he created it.

There's no way of knowing if that's even the case. If you assume that the metadata was deliberately altered, how can you trust that it was done 30 minutes after the creation?

Based on everything I've seen from the wiki-links, it seems they are asserting that Gucci 2.0 may be a creation of the DNC or Clinton campaign in order to discredit the DNC leaks, and later build upon the Russian narrative. It leads me back to wondering why the DNC would hire a 3rd party to look into the hacking instead of allowing the FBI to look.

And why would this DNC creation csex an playmate from the 80s, in character claim that it wasn't a hacker but rather the receiver of leaks and then claim that Seth Rich was murdered for leaking?

How does that make any sense?

I do like how you create a post but decide to not dig deeper. Bias much? Or are you afraid of what you might find?

I like how you hypocritically talk smack.

originally posted by: NthOther
I don't even understand what you're getting at anymore.

So... Trump is colluding with the Russians, WL is colluding with the Russians, Puscifer 5000 is a Russian, the Russians killed Seth Rich and crucified Jesus...

Wtf, dude?

What are you going on about? The OP has nothing to do with Trump, his campaign and possible coordination between the two. It's quite simple. Wikileaks is trying to muddy the waters — much like you are in your post — but in the case of WL, they're promoting conflicting narratives and exploiting the death of Seth Rich.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Why?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

So you don't think it's interesting that Wikileaks and friends are throwing s# against the wall to see what sticks? Do you believe that Guccifer 2.0 was actually a DNC operative?

Does it makes sense that if he was a DNC operative, he would:

- Spend two weeks+ of this time pretending to be an Eastern European while carrying on this Twitter DM "thing" with this woman.

- Destroy the presumed character's narrative entirely by confessing that the documents weren't hacked but actually leaked to him.

- Claim that Seth Rich was the source and implicate his employers in the political assassination of Seth Rich? And again, this is all while staying in character.

You and I both know that makes absolutely no sense. So why are you trying to derail the thread instead of asking why Wikileaks is once more engaging in dubious insinuation regarding Seth Rich and his murder?

a reply to: Wardaddy454

I wonder who Warren Flood is

Corporal Flood's volunteer crew on the quarter-deck worked the 3-inch gun with the precision and certainty of a well-regulated machine. They might have been at drill for all the excitement they displayed. A Jap plane flew over; the gun flamed, it roared, it leaped to the rear, it slid to the front; the gun was loaded; another target appeared, the gun was fired again, and the projectile screamed skyward. I thought these men performed their duties in a most efficient manner despite the fact that they had no previous experience in the use of that particular type gun. The members of gun crew were Corp. Warren K. Flood, Pfc George W. Dinning, Pvts. Robert H. Stinecipher, Jr., George H. Tarver, and Benjamin F. Williams, Jr.”

USS Tennessee (BB-43)
December 7, 1941

The donkey in a bear costume, is the last line from old Russian poem.

Buck

P.S. Warren's birthday was 4 days ago. April 4th