Wikileaks Tweets New Bombshell Video of Rod Wheeler Recording On Seth Rich Investigation

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If wikileaks came out and said Seth was the leaker, I'm 100% sure you would move the goalposts and claim wikileaks is a Russian propaganda outlet.

I have already claimed that Wikileaks is a Russian propaganda outlet before they said that BECAUSE they won't admit to Seth Rich being a source, so your attempt at putting words in my mouth looks ridiculous and ill informed.

So in your mind, either Rich is their source, or they are a Russian propaganda outlet?

By that same token, I assume you feel that because Fusion GPS won't testify, they are a Russian propaganda outlet. And all of the anti Trump RNC and DNC members that paid them or spread their disinfo were working with Russia to take down the President.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have already claimed that Wikileaks is a Russian propaganda outlet before they said that BECAUSE they won't admit to Seth Rich being a source

That is nonsense, if they were Russian propaganda then they would have already named Seth as the leaker, as that would take the heat off of the Russian collusion narrative. You talk in circles a lot!

No it makes sense if they DON'T admit it. Then they can make it look like they are playing both sides by alluding to him being the leaker while he really wasn't. Again. This is all being done to muddy the waters. It is textbook propaganda. If you'd just open your mind about it, you'd realize this.

The only propaganda out there is disseminated by the DNC and their media operatives. That's what you are falling for.

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have already claimed that Wikileaks is a Russian propaganda outlet before they said that BECAUSE they won't admit to Seth Rich being a source

That is nonsense, if they were Russian propaganda then they would have already named Seth as the leaker, as that would take the heat off of the Russian collusion narrative. You talk in circles a lot!

No it makes sense if they DON'T admit it. Then they can make it look like they are playing both sides by alluding to him being the leaker while he really wasn't. Again. This is all being done to muddy the waters. It is textbook propaganda. If you'd just open your mind about it, you'd realize this.

The only propaganda out there is disseminated by the DNC and their media operatives. That's what you are falling for.

I thought we were done talking? You started insulting me. That tells me that you don't want to discuss with me anymore and just want to argue. Make up your mind.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Nobody was caught tampering with the democrat primaries.
That's total garbage just like the Seth rich story is total garbage.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Let's see, wikileaks offered a monetary reward, slipped up and inferred that Seth was one of their sources during an interview, repeatedly said Russia wasn't their source, then links to hersh saying Seth rich was the source based on an FBI report he's seen. Wikileaks has a 100% accuracy history. Crowdstrike... Not so much.

Then there is hersh, is he lying too? A pulitzer prize winning journalist from the liberal New Yorker, thought he'd just make up a story about Seth rich being the source?

Then there is wheeler who admits he was obstructed every step of the way. Admits that they don't want to get to the bottom of the rich murder.

They're all liars? But not crowdstrike? whose methods are demonstrably crap. Whose history is pretty bad.

C'mon. You're smarter than this.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Grambler

Do you think that by alluding to Rich being their source that they are doing a good job of protecting their source? Do you think they are dumb and inexperienced enough to think they are fooling everyone by hinting but not actually stating that he was their source?

Or do you think they are smart enough to throw people off the track of their real source by hinting that he is their source?

Which is it? Is Wikileaks careless and stupid or wily and smart?

It could be that, when you consider what Hersh said, that multiple people had access to the files as an insurance fail safe. One could speculate, that it's a possibility that it could have been someone else they actually did the transfer after Rich died. It would be people he trusted most. There's definitely something to look into.

a reply to: Sillyolme

LOL you mean Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned over nothing.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If wikileaks came out and said Seth was the leaker, I'm 100% sure you would move the goalposts and claim wikileaks is a Russian propaganda outlet.

I have already claimed that Wikileaks is a Russian propaganda outlet before they said that BECAUSE they won't admit to Seth Rich being a source, so your attempt at putting words in my mouth looks ridiculous and ill informed.

So in your mind, either Rich is their source, or they are a Russian propaganda outlet?

Sigh... Leave it to you to oversimplify my words... Sure. Let's go with that. Somehow I feel like taking the time to explain my nuanced opinion to you would be a waste of time anyways since you never seem to care about it.

By that same token, I assume you feel that because Fusion GPS won't testify, they are a Russian propaganda outlet. And all of the anti Trump RNC and DNC members that paid them or spread their disinfo were working with Russia to take down the President.

Case in point... Apparently it is too hard for you to understand that I approach different situations differently.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Grambler

Do you think that by alluding to Rich being their source that they are doing a good job of protecting their source? Do you think they are dumb and inexperienced enough to think they are fooling everyone by hinting but not actually stating that he was their source?

Or do you think they are smart enough to throw people off the track of their real source by hinting that he is their source?

Which is it? Is Wikileaks careless and stupid or wily and smart?

Why don't you ask Krazyshot?

He is claiming that they won't verify their source so they are Russian propaganda.

You are saying that they alluding that Rich is the source shows they are bad.

Your exact post will be the very rationale Krazy and others use if wikileaks would definitively say that Ricch was their source; he would say they are just trying to throw people off of the track of their real source.

My stance is this; I have never once claimed that I thought it has been proven that Rich was the source. Nor do I think the intelligence agencies have proven that Russia was.

I want to see proof from either side before I will believe them.

But it seems as if many are willing to buy the russia story without seeing any proof, based merely off of what, the reputation of the intelligence community or crowd strike? (side note, if Russia did it, why won't the DNC let the FBI see the server?)

Well if thats the standard, the IC community and crowdstrike have proven to be wrong many times, and wikileaks has not once been proven in their entire history to release false info.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have already claimed that Wikileaks is a Russian propaganda outlet before they said that BECAUSE they won't admit to Seth Rich being a source

That is nonsense, if they were Russian propaganda then they would have already named Seth as the leaker, as that would take the heat off of the Russian collusion narrative. You talk in circles a lot!

No it makes sense if they DON'T admit it. Then they can make it look like they are playing both sides by alluding to him being the leaker while he really wasn't. Again. This is all being done to muddy the waters. It is textbook propaganda. If you'd just open your mind about it, you'd realize this.

The only propaganda out there is disseminated by the DNC and their media operatives. That's what you are falling for.

I thought we were done talking? You started insulting me. That tells me that you don't want to discuss with me anymore and just want to argue. Make up your mind.

I just said you don't know what your talking about and I also did not insult you. I really mean that you do not know what you are talking about.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Case in point... Apparently it is too hard for you to understand that I approach different situations differently.

Yes, there is name for people that do that.

Hypocrite.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Sillyolme

LOL you mean Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned over nothing.

This is what we are dealing with. People who don't want the truth. They just want their side to win and protect their narrative...and Russia.

a reply to: Dfairlite

No. But it sure as hell wasn't tampering. That's a very serious charge that would be in a court but oh yeah...
No they just didn't like Bernie as much and that's not a crime. Nor is it tampering.
Why don't you research just why Debbie quit and get back to me. Obviously your just repeating stuff you've read here so don't know what actually happened.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Let's see, wikileaks offered a monetary reward, slipped up and inferred that Seth was one of their sources during an interview, repeatedly said Russia wasn't their source, then links to hersh saying Seth rich was the source based on an FBI report he's seen. Wikileaks has a 100% accuracy history. Crowdstrike... Not so much.

Let's see. Anyone can offer a reward. That says nothing. "Slipping up" and inferring that Seth is your source could have been a calculated plan. It's not like they slipped up and admitted it. Still says nothing. Saying Russia isn't your source. Um who cares what their opinion is there? And the video in the OP is just hearsay and STILL not a full out admission that Rich was the source.

So basically you are saying you trust Wikileaks because they tell you vague things you want to hear and have a 100% success rate telling you things you want to hear.

Then there is hersh, is he lying too? A pulitzer prize winning journalist from the liberal New Yorker, thought he'd just make up a story about Seth rich being the source?

Sure. Anyone can be a liar. He also could just be an unknowing dupe. Also, I believe it was you who was trying to call me out earlier for an appeal to authority fallacy.

Then there is wheeler who admits he was obstructed every step of the way. Admits that they don't want to get to the bottom of the rich murder.

Who is "they"?

They're all liars? But not crowdstrike? whose methods are demonstrably crap. Whose history is pretty bad.

C'mon. You're smarter than this.

Says the guy trying to tell me that hearsay is credible evidence. BUWHAHAHAHAHAHA. You lecturing me on being smarter than that is just silly.

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have already claimed that Wikileaks is a Russian propaganda outlet before they said that BECAUSE they won't admit to Seth Rich being a source

That is nonsense, if they were Russian propaganda then they would have already named Seth as the leaker, as that would take the heat off of the Russian collusion narrative. You talk in circles a lot!

No it makes sense if they DON'T admit it. Then they can make it look like they are playing both sides by alluding to him being the leaker while he really wasn't. Again. This is all being done to muddy the waters. It is textbook propaganda. If you'd just open your mind about it, you'd realize this.

The only propaganda out there is disseminated by the DNC and their media operatives. That's what you are falling for.

I thought we were done talking? You started insulting me. That tells me that you don't want to discuss with me anymore and just want to argue. Make up your mind.

I just said you don't know what your talking about and I also did not insult you. I really mean that you do not know what you are talking about.

If you don't think that is an insult then you are the dumb one. I only told you that you didn't prove anything to me because you didn't, then you got offended and said I didn't know anything. There were no links backing up anything you said. Thus no proof of your words. Plus I don't trust you.

a reply to: Grambler

If Wikileaks would show proof of Rich being their source, I would believe it.

Many also believe the "Rich was the source" story with no proof other than a reward offer and some cryptic comments by Wikileaks. I personally think Wikileaks is too smart and too experienced to reveal their source that way.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: pale5218

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yep, Wikileaks is not doing a very good job of protecting their source if they've all but said "Rich is our source" . That's a piss poor job of protecting if you ask me.

From their stand, they are protecting it,

Like I said, they are doing a horrible job of it, if that's what they're trying to do. Now, if they are trying to protect Russian contacts, they are being brilliant.

Well I don't think I have seen any reports or testimony saying that WL has identified Seth as the source. The "all but said Rich is our source" statement is conjecture.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: pale5218

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: pale5218

Seth Rich's family wants Wikileaks to stop what they are doing. Wikileaks is CERTAINLY not taking their wants into consideration and they CERTAINLY aren't trying to protect his family. Stop making stuff up.

Seths family is probably worried the attention is already there and don't want more. Hence my point!

Just because you don't like the answer don't accuse me a making stuff up, that's not s good tactic.

I said I think there is reason to protect the source. I made that up? Really jeez.

I'm accusing you of making things up because you are. Seth Rich's family have written EXTENSIVELY about wanting this conspiracy theory to stop. They even wrote an oped in the Washington Post begging the public to stop this frivolity.
We’re Seth Rich’s parents. Stop politicizing our son’s murder.

There is no reason to protect the source. That is just a BS excuse you are swallowing because you aren't doing enough due diligence to vet Wikileaks as a source.

I stand ready for your accusation, what did I make up? Tell me.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Russia not being their source isn't their opinion. They are literally the people who got the documents. I think they'd know where who gave them to them.

I trust wikileaks because no one has proved them wrong. All the documents they leak are legit, 100% of the time. I also trust them because they don't have a reason to lie here. Our government lies all the time. They have reason to lie here, too. If they're lying right now, they won't get away with it. Time will prove who's right and wrong.

You're right, hersh could be a dupe or lying. But his background doesn't support that. The Intel agencies don't have that luxury. Their backgrounds are littered with lies and bad info.

"They" are the DC police. As mentioned in the wheeler video.

Im pointing out that you have one point of failure because the DNC won't let anyone else look at their server (why?). Yet you ignore a story corroborated by three sources. If my "hearsay" is weak yours is bread crumbs.

Time will tell. That's all.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Russia not being their source isn't their opinion. They are literally the people who got the documents. I think they'd know where who gave them to them.

So let's say they are a Russian propaganda outlet, what makes you think they'd tell the truth?

I trust wikileaks because no one has proved them wrong. All the documents they leak are legit, 100% of the time. I also trust them because they don't have a reason to lie here. Our government lies all the time. They have reason to lie here, too. If they're lying right now, they won't get away with it. Time will prove whose right and wrong.

They are never wrong because they don't come out and confirm their claims. Sure they may do data dumps that are legit, but how can you prove Wikileaks wrong if they never come out and fully admit that Seth Rich was their source? For one, outside of physically talking to Seth you could never get an insight into this and for two even IF you could find definitive proof of the real source Wikileaks could just say they never admitted to him being the source and not be wrong. It's a weasel tactic and a clear sign of them fueling propaganda instead of supporting the truth.

You're right, hersh could be a dupe or lying. But his background doesn't support that. The Intel agencies don't have that luxury. Their backgrounds are littered with lies and bad info.

"They" are the DC police. As mentioned in the wheeler video.

The police who have said it was a botched robbery?

Im pointing out that you have one point of failure because the DNC won't let anyone else look at their server (why?). Yet you ignore a story corroborated by three sources. If my "hearsay" is weak yours is bread crumbs.

That "point of failure" doesn't magically given credence to your hearsay and speculations. The hard evidence still points to it being a failed robbery no matter how you want to argue otherwise and spin it.

Time will tell. That's all.

Time has already told. That is why Fox News is being sued for inventing this story.