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

a reply to: mkultra11

Yes. I know what Wikileaks has done. They have done JUST enough to wet the appetite of the gullible and confirmation biased and just short of implicating themselves as out-and-out liars by saying Rich was the leaker then being proven wrong somehow. As long as they can keep the waters muddy then there will be no resolution to this case and people such as yourself will continue to ignore all the evidence that shows this was a just a regular robbery gone wrong. I trust the ACTUAL police who investigated this over Fox News and Wikileaks.

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.

You see Krazyshot?

Half the people say that if wikileaks doesn't come right out and say Rich was their source, they aren't to be trusted.

Then you have half that say by alluding to Rich being the source they have done a poor job of protecting their source.

Some [people have just made up their mind and will criticize anything against their narrative.

originally posted by: Grambler
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.

Yes. I always trust hard evidence over no evidence and claims regardless of past errors or credibility. Clearly Wikileaks is hiding behind their credibility of never releasing anything false to string you guys along with this bull#. That's why they always stop just short of saying that Rich was their source. If they release vague bs that alludes to it then they can continue to claim they never admitted it if it is ever proven to be false.

If Wikileaks wants my trust then they need to release proof that Rich was their leaker. End of story.

a reply to: Grambler

All I see is Wikileaks defenders holding their candle for them while Wikileaks delivers horse excrement to them.

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.

The entire Russia hacked the DNC narrative literally hinges on Crowdstrike's report. Crowdstrike has serious credibility issues and hardly an impartial party. The DNC never allowed the FBI to analyze their servers and instead mysteriously relied on a third party on the DNC payroll. Not only that, they never provided definitive proof that Russia hacked the DNC, only some questionable metadata, that analysts said appeared to be tampered with with when Guccifer 2.0 releases some info. Then Guccifer 2.0, seems to have appeared to push the Russia narrative of DNC hacking. Also, questionable. Then, they discover that the transfer speed of the Guccifer 2.0 files were copied locally and not remotely. The 17 intel agencies agreeing that Russian tampered with the election was nothing but a talking point to obfuscate that the DNC was not really hacked. Then the 17 turned into 3-4. Despite the fact they were not talking specifically about the DNC hack, but generally which is common knowledge. I just proved to you that these sources are not entirely credible by your own standards. So, are you interested in the truth or you just want to protect an extremely flawed and likely false narrative?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

LOL wow. So let's see, one firm looked at the server, published a disputed report that it was done by Russia, and a bunch of Intel agencies hopped on board. That's really your evidence? And you called wikileaks and hersh evidence weak!?

A single point of failure brings the whole thing crashing down and fail it did. They assumed fancy bear could have only been used by the Russians since it was Russian originated malware. But having been used previously, it was available for anyone to have used. I could have used it and crowdstrike would be blaming the Russians.

And this wouldn't be the first time crowdstrike was demonstrably stupid and wrong. Remember the Sony hack? Crowdstrike blamed North Korea. Great, except God only knows who hacked Sony 'that time' because anyone can hack Sony. Ever heard of sownage?

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.

a reply to: mkultra11

I just proved to you that these sources are not entirely credible by your own standards.

Funniest line of your post of non-links and pure text there. No bud. You didn't prove anything. All you did was talk your opinions at me and appear to be substituting your opinions for facts.

Pretty much the entire world's intelligence agencies still agree that the DNC was hacked. That hasn't changed no matter how much you want to tell me otherwise.

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.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Appeal to authority is a very weak argument.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So he wasn't putting words in your mouth, if you actually already said it.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

LOL wow. So let's see, one firm looked at the server, published a disputed report that it was done by Russia, and a bunch of Intel agencies hopped on board. That's really your evidence? And you called wikileaks and hersh evidence weak!?

This is why I didn't post it. I knew you don't care about actually investigating this. Apparently you think that the non-evidence that Wikileaks has released is somehow more damning than actual evidence that Crowdstrike released. But regardless of how you feel about the Crowdstrike report, the police have already confirmed that Rich was murdered by a botched robbery.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So he wasn't putting words in your mouth, if you actually already said it.

"...so your attempt at putting words in my mouth looks ridiculous and ill informed. "
Reading comprehension. Give it a try

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: mkultra11

Yes. I know what Wikileaks has done. They have done JUST enough to wet the appetite of the gullible and confirmation biased and just short of implicating themselves as out-and-out liars by saying Rich was the leaker then being proven wrong somehow. As long as they can keep the waters muddy then there will be no resolution to this case and people such as yourself will continue to ignore all the evidence that shows this was a just a regular robbery gone wrong. I trust the ACTUAL police who investigated this over Fox News and Wikileaks.

There something here that you just aren't grasping or just ignored. Wikileaks will not releases their source and that's because once they do, no potential source will trust them. They claim to be no different than a journalist and protecting there sources. You haven;t been paying attention to my posts. I've said they both can be true and it wouldn't discredit the other. He could have been a victim of a botched robbery and still could be the DNC leaker. However there are serious issues with the alleged murder investigation. The "ACTUAL" police have never solved his murder and never caught the perpetrator. There are huge holes with the investigation itself. There's over 345K of reward money out there. That's more then enough for any street criminal that robs people at night to rat out a friend.

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!

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Appeal to authority is a very weak argument.

And which authority did I appeal to in that post?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: mkultra11

I just proved to you that these sources are not entirely credible by your own standards.

Funniest line of your post of non-links and pure text there. No bud. You didn't prove anything. All you did was talk your opinions at me and appear to be substituting your opinions for facts.

Pretty much the entire world's intelligence agencies still agree that the DNC was hacked. That hasn't changed no matter how much you want to tell me otherwise.

Ok, so you have no idea what you are talking about.

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.

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?

a reply to: mkultra11

So we are done talking then? Ok. That's fine. I'll move onto the other people talking to me.