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

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: burntheships

Wikileaks basically tweeted that seth rich is their source. Think about that.

No they didn't. If they had done that then they would have tweeted "Seth Rich is our source". There is no "basically" about it. This is just another shady tactic of theirs to keep stringing you along with bread crumbs that lead nowhere all to obfuscate and distract from the real reporting showing this conspiracy is 100% fake news.

Their entire existence is predicated on the fact that they've never leaked their sources. For them to "Indirectly" say it's him is the best you are going to get from them saying it's him. I found his interview in the summer to be very telling when he posted the reward.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I agree

Thank god for life insurance.

We all need some

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: burntheships

Wikileaks basically tweeted that seth rich is their source. Think about that.

No they didn't. If they had done that then they would have tweeted "Seth Rich is our source". There is no "basically" about it. This is just another shady tactic of theirs to keep stringing you along with bread crumbs that lead nowhere all to obfuscate and distract from the real reporting showing this conspiracy is 100% fake news.

Their entire existence is predicated on the fact that they've never leaked their sources. For them to "Indirectly" say it's him is the best you are going to get from them saying it's him. I found his interview in the summer to be very telling when he posted the reward.

If that is the best you are going to get then they will forever remain a shady source. I'm not going to compromise my evidence standards just because Wikileaks thinks that protecting a source post-death somehow gives them credibility. Seth Rich is dead. There is no rhyme or reason to continue to protect him as a source if he is truly the source. But their tactics make a ton of sense if they are lying and just trying to string you along with little crumbs to make you think he is the source.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You don't have to trust Wikileaks. Just remember that they've been impeccable with protecting sources and also nothing they've release has been proven inauthentic.

Also, even if they flat out said it was Rich, it wouldn't solve his murder. I see his death and him being the leak as separate incidents until a solid connection is made. Even though rewards over 345K are sitting there for any low level street criminal to eat their friend or rival, and still no takers.

originally posted by: mkultra11
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You don't have to trust Wikileaks. Just remember that they've been impeccable with protecting sources and also nothing they've release has been proven inauthentic.

Their history has no baring on the info they are releasing today. I vet the information and only the information.

Also, even if they flat out said it was Rich, it wouldn't solve his murder. I see his death and him being the leak as separate incidents until a solid connection is made. Even though rewards over 345K are sitting there for any low level street criminal to eat their friend or rival, and still no takers.

It would go a long way of substantiating the claim that Rich was murdered by the DNC and help focus the investigation in that direction. As it stands there is literally zero evidence pointing to the DNC murdering Rich outside of Wikileaks heavily insinuating that is the case. So there is no reason to believe Wikileaks here; that is why they are liars until proven otherwise.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wikileaks has never once leaked information that wasn't authentic. Name another media source with that record.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wikileaks has never once leaked information that wasn't authentic. Name another media source with that record.

That must be why they won't tell us that Seth Rich was their source. It would be a lie.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

LOL, journalists never reveal their sources. Are you really going to play so dense as to think that anything short of a public statement means nothing?

They shared hersh saying Seth rich was the source. They've said the Russians are not the source. Yet you think the Russians were, don't you?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

LOL, journalists never reveal their sources. Are you really going to play so dense as to think that anything short of a public statement means nothing?

Not when they are dead. There is nothing to protect.

They shared hersh saying Seth rich was the source. They've said the Russians are not the source. Yet you think the Russians were, don't you?

So? That doesn't mean anything except confirmation to people with predetermined biases. Hard evidence is all that matters. So until Wikileaks proves with hard evidence that Seth Rich was their source then they are liars. There is plenty of evidence to show that their source was Russian hackers though.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, please show me the evidence that their source was Russian hackers. And realize the standard of proof you've just boxed yourself into.

I won't hold my breath

Not when they are dead. There is nothing to protect.

I would say there is need for protecting the source.

If Seth shared this information to a friend, then I'm thinking they are certainly hoping the source isn't confirmed.

I would also think that going after family members or loved ones after his death may make future potential informers to reconsider and possibly backing out.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, please show me the evidence that their source was Russian hackers. And realize the standard of proof you've just boxed yourself into.

I won't hold my breath

It's all over the internet in the form of the CrowdStrike posts. Intelligence agencies across the world are in unanimous agreement that it was the Russians. The fact you are pretending like these sources aren't credible just shows that it isn't worth posting links to them. Your biases have already determined that a shady website that is a front for Russian intelligence is more credible than your own country's intelligence agencies.

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.

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.

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.

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,

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: mkultra11
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You don't have to trust Wikileaks. Just remember that they've been impeccable with protecting sources and also nothing they've release has been proven inauthentic.

Their history has no baring on the info they are releasing today. I vet the information and only the information.

Also, even if they flat out said it was Rich, it wouldn't solve his murder. I see his death and him being the leak as separate incidents until a solid connection is made. Even though rewards over 345K are sitting there for any low level street criminal to eat their friend or rival, and still no takers.

It would go a long way of substantiating the claim that Rich was murdered by the DNC and help focus the investigation in that direction. As it stands there is literally zero evidence pointing to the DNC murdering Rich outside of Wikileaks heavily insinuating that is the case. So there is no reason to believe Wikileaks here; that is why they are liars until proven otherwise.

Whether you personally believe Wikileaks or not is irrelevant. Wikileaks never insinuated that the DNC murdered Rich either. They only put up a reward for the finding who killed him. Have you even watched the video? I also don't disagree that Rich was murdered because I haven't seen any evidence that the DNC had him killed. However, I am leaning to him being the leaker. Seth, being a Bernie supporter, figured out how the DNC was cheating Bernie out of the nomination and was disgruntled to the point where he wanted to expose them.

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.

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.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, please show me the evidence that their source was Russian hackers. And realize the standard of proof you've just boxed yourself into.

I won't hold my breath

It's all over the internet in the form of the CrowdStrike posts. Intelligence agencies across the world are in unanimous agreement that it was the Russians. The fact you are pretending like these sources aren't credible just shows that it isn't worth posting links to them. Your biases have already determined that a shady website that is a front for Russian intelligence is more credible than your own country's intelligence agencies.

So you don't trust wikileaks, who has never one been proven to release false info.

But you trust crowdstrike,who got egg on their face from being wrong about Russia hacking Ukraine, and the intelligence agencies that have been proven to lie over and over again in places like Iraq.

It is hilarious to see people on the left cheering for the same intelligence agencies that support regime change wars that they once protested.