WikiLeaks is pointing followers to purported screen caps of Twitter direct message exchanges between Guccifer 2.0 and a former Playboy playmate to once again fuel speculation that murdered DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was assassinated for leaking DNC emails.
The alleged exchanges between Guccifer 2.0 and Robbin Young, also known by her “Erotic Look-Alike” moniker, Marilyn Moanroe, are a mix of flirtation bordering on cybersex, horrendously bad erotic “poetry” about a blowjob, an obscene abundance of heart emojis, Young’s pro-Trump/anti-Clinton political views — and the money shot — the dubious claim that Seth Rich was murdered for leaking DNC emails and documents to the entity known as Guccifer 2.0, who alleged confessed:
“his name is seth, he was my whistleblower”
“I suppose u know who i'm talking about”
"i'm eager to find fact about seth, i'm sure it wasn't just a robbery"
"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 assassinated"
WikiLeaks has been anything but reluctant when it comes to fostering the belief among millions that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails they released. In an interview with Fox News’s Megyn Kelly, recorded the same day as the above messages were allegedly sent, the often coy Julian Assange left ample room for interpretation in responses to questions asked about Rich:
"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."
However, when it comes to the suggestion that Guccifer 2.0 was the source, the answers have been far more definitive — it’s all media conflation:
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.
This is in spite of numerous claims by Guccifer 2.0 that “he” was the WikiLeaks source.
Not surprisingly, considering their obvious promotion of the Clinton-or-the-DNC-murdered-Seth-Rich-for-leaking-emails-to-WikiLeaks narrative, WikiLeaks also tweeted a link to the front page of the site hosting the alleged Twitter DM archive, a page where the site operator speciously speculates that Guccifer 2.0 was actually a persona thrown together by the Clinton Campaign to head-off the pending WikiLeaks release alluded to by Assange in an ITV interview just days earlier.
(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.
While the author, whose name may or may not be Adam Carter, does an admirable job of identifying a few curious details in the metadata of a handful of documents provided by Guccifer 2.0, his hypothesis relies critically on dubious assumptions and offers a purely speculative interpretation that ignores more plausible explanations.
It’s beyond the scope of this post to offer a point-by-point debunking of the author’s hypothesis but it doesn’t even pass the smell test. For instance, the DCleaks.com domain was registered on April 19th — months before the Assange's June 12th interview.
Excluding the possibility of a DNC-operated time machine or prescience al a Minority Report, it seems exceedingly unlikely that the either the campaign or the DNC would have registered the domain in anticipation of its future use.
But perhaps the most glaring problem with the hypothesis, one that seems to concern neither its creator nor WikiLeaks — as they throw shit against the wall to see what sticks — is that the purported DM exchange they’re using to promote the Seth Rich assassination and ”the hacks were really leaks” narratives tends to completely contradict this separate narrative of “Guccifer 2.0” as a hastily fabricated persona used to invalidate the then pending WikiLeaks releases!
Why would a DNC/Clinton operative spend months on an elaborate ruse only to tell destroy it in cybersexy direct messages to a former playmate and bit part actress from the 80’s?
And why would a DNC/Clinton operative, without any prompting at all, implicate his bosses in the murder of Seth Rich?
I refuse to believe that these conspicuous inconsistencies escape the notice of the folks at WikiLeaks. That can only lead me to conclude that Wikileaks is wantonly exploiting the murder of Seth Rich as part of a continuing campaign against Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.