The Rabbit Files 8.1: The Bunny and the Romanian Hacker

We last left off in The Rabbit Files with WikiLeaks’ complicity in pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy theory and former Playboy model, Robbin Young, dropping a bombshell two weeks before Texas financier, Ed Butowsky, and private investigator, Rod Wheeler, met with then-White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, about the Seth Rich case. While their investigation was heating up, Young decided then was as good a time as any to release eight-month-old DMs between herself and Guccifer 2, shockingly revealing that Guccifer 2 had privately told her that Seth Rich was their source.

During the weeks leading up to the release, pro-Assange accounts like @AnonScan (presumably now @AnonScandinavia; see “Updates” at the bottom) and @BellaMagnani were peddling an erroneous story that pegged DNC worker, Warren Flood, as the man behind the Guccifer 2 persona and this appears to be one of the reasons why Young decided to speak out.

Although WikiLeaks retweeted the Flood story despite the fact that the article accused an innocent man of something he didn’t do (oh, the irony!), @BellaMagnani was by far one of the most prolific spreaders of the conspiracy. On March 19, 2017, the account tweeted the false accusations to Robbin Young  and three weeks later Young went public with her DMs, one of which she sent to Guccifer 2 as late as March 11, 2017, six months after they stopped talking.

“His Name Was Seth”

Between August 15-September 13, 2016, Robbin Young and Guccifer 2 exchanged over two dozen Twitter DMs with each other, seemingly enjoying a budding but kinda weird online romantic relationship. But the real so-called bombshell found in the messages was Guccifer 2 stating that Seth Rich was their source, contradicting what the “Romanian hacker” had said previously.

Although Julian Assange’s interview on August 9, 2016, when he first mentioned Seth Rich is perhaps one of, if not the most notorious moment in the conspiracy, a little remembered interview that he did with Fox News a few weeks later may have influenced what Guccifer 2 told Robbin Young. That is, if the DMs are legit which I’m not sure that they are.

On August 25th, Fox News released a sneak peak at the second part of an interview that Megyn Kelly conducted with Assange (above) during which the Fox news reporter directly asked him about the murder of Seth Rich. The interview was broadcast that evening and at some point on that same date, Guccifer told Young:


Leading up to Guccifer 2’s confession which wholly contradicted their claim that they were a “lone wolf hacker” and the source of the DNC emails, G2 told Young that they were looking for a “person of trust who can be a guarantee in case something happens to me.” Apparently the former Bond girl somehow fit the bill. The following is taken from Young’s direct messages (with emphasis):

Guccifer 2: “u may know a person who can do an investigation and dig the truth on one sensitive case...i’d like to find a journalist who can do an investigation and teel [sic] the real story of his life and death…His name was Seth…I’m eager to find fact about seth, I’m sure it wasn’t just a robbery. I’d be greatful [sic] to u if there’s any chance you can help me find the person who can find the evidence that seth was assassinated”

Young: “Damn it, I’m not in Washington, D.C. and I have no ties there. What about the journalist, you follow, Cassandra [Fairbanks]?”

By this point, Guccifer 2 had already been privately communicating with Fairbanks since June, taking a special interest in a class action suit that was filed against the DNC by attorneys Jared and Lee Beck on June 28, 2016. 

As evidence that the DNC plotted to rob Bernie Sanders of the Democratic nomination, the Becks included at least one document in the lawsuit that came from Guccifer 2’s initial release on June 15, 2016. 

Although I’ve noted throughout The Rabbit Files, repeatedly no less, that Guccifer 2 never dropped any documents that spoiled WikiLeaks’ future publications, I completely forgot about the Becks’ class action suit. The case was eventually dismissed but the idea, the premise, a lawsuit arguing that the DNC had purposely screwed over Bernie Sanders based on published documents was already in the public realm almost a month before WikiLeaks started publishing the DNC emails.

As for Cassandra Fairbanks, there’s no indication that Guccifer 2 mentioned to her that Seth Rich was their source although they did say on August 18, 2016, “[A]nother strange death after Seth Rich was murdered,” in response to Fairbanks mentioning that the man who served the DNC lawsuit was found dead “earlier this month.” 

Nor did Guccifer 2 mention to Young that they were already in private contact with Fairbanks. They did, however, express to Young that they wanted to find a journalist who could write about Seth Rich because no one was covering the story which is absurd in light of the fact that Assange and WikiLeaks had just sent the press into a flurry two weeks prior after mentioning Rich and offering a $20K award. Additionally, Fox News was running (or had already run) an interview with Assange about Seth Rich on the very day that Guccifer 2 made these comments. 

Guccifer 2’s comments don’t really make sense in the context of what was happening when they made them, but they would make sense if some of G2’s DMs were manufactured, say, sometime between January-March 2017.  What also doesn’t make sense is @BellaMagnani’s comments about Guccifer 2’s request to find a journalist:

Right. The DNC created the Guccifer 2 persona and then used it to shop around “discreetly” for a journalist via a former Playboy model, no less, because obviously the DNC doesn’t have the power, money, or means to find a journalist any other way. Hoo boy, the propaganda is strong with this one…

If we followed @BellaMagnani’s logic during the months of March and April, 2017, we would have to believe that the DNC planted some guy named Warren Flood behind the Guccifer 2 persona who then tried to negate the entire DNC Russian narrative by claiming that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails.

I mean, technically, the conspiracy theory that Seth Rich was Guccifer 2’s source blew apart entirely the Warren Flood/DNC/Guccifer conspiracy theory, the purpose of which I believe was threefold: It doubled down on the Seth Rich conspiracy which only helped two people, Donald Trump and Julian Assange; it was a means to move on from Warren Flood and make everyone forget who initially and deliberately tried to frame an innocent man; and it further divided and confused Americans—especially WikiLeaks supporters—by creating more chaos surrounding the DNC emails.

Annoyingly Long Updates:

May 20, 2021: I have noted throughout The Rabbit Files that I personally believe former AnonIntelGroup member and hacktivist, Ray Johansen, has access to and/or is a close associate of both the old @AnonScan account as well as the new one, @AnonScandinavia. Over the course of the last three years, neither of these accounts have ever rebuked things like fascist elements being welcomed into the Assange support community but they recently took the time to publicly chastise me over my belief about Johansen’s access (while failing to address the association part) because apparently “Anonymous Scandinavia” is more emotionally invested in my opinions than, say, fighting fascism.

And even though @AnonScandinavia publicly denied that Johansen has access to their account, which may indeed be true, the account is also known for protecting abusive liars, promoting malicious actors who carry out defamation campaigns and try to dox activists, and associating with Beth Bogaerts (@HumanOfMind) who went so insanely far to discredit me that she actually perjured herself in court multiple times by bizarrely and falsely accusing me of being paid/hired by her former business partner so, no, I don’t believe them. Like, on any level. As for my audience, I’ll leave it up to them to make their own decision. 

Of course, @AnonScandinavia’s recent denial in no way negates the fact that the account privately vouched for Johansen in the past in order to boost Johansen’s trustworthiness factor which is exactly zero despite his endless twaddle about “trust” and “loyalty.” That is, if the person(s) behind the account now is the same one(s) who previously vouched for Johansen which they themselves claim they’re not. 

Due to incredibly poor opsec, whoever was running the old @AnonScan account in September 2020, claimed that someone (?) was able to contact the family of the @AnonScan administrator and gain the passwords to Anonymous Scandinavia’s Youtube and email accounts. Then they claimed they were still working on gaining control of the Twitter account which they clearly eventually did.

This was after guys like Johansen spread private rumors last summer that the (original?) administrator of the @AnonScan account was highly depressed hence the reason there had been no activity on the account for months last year. I’ve also heard rumors that some people were told the administrator killed himself. 

Like other things that have disappeared after they were exposed in The Rabbit Files, Anonymous Scandinavia rewrote the video title and deleted the video description on a September 7, 2020 video they posted that explained this ridiculous story and revealed just how bad the account’s opsec was. 

So aside from @AnonScan being an opsec dumpster fire, according to the above statement the lack of activity on the account last year was not due to the administrator’s depression like Johansen claimed, but rather vicious attacks on their servers and devices. And yes, Anonymous Scandinavia, their servers, and their devices have been so heavily targeted by the deep shadows of lurking intelligence agencies (as they have claimed repeatedly over the years) that the original administrator, an alleged member of Anonymous, no less, decided it was a great idea to give out enough personal information to unnamed actors that it allowed these unnamed actors to track down and contact his family in order to obtain the passwords to all of @AnonScan’s accounts.

These people are seriously running a three-ring circus on a Suzie Dawson merry-go-round.

Then, earlier this year the @AnonScan account was shut down (deleting all evidence of what they’ve posted since 2016) and a new one popped up a month later as @AnonScandinavia, claiming that they are the same as the old @AnonScan account. But do they mean they’re the administrator of the old @AnonScan account where an unnamed actor(s) took control of it after apparently obtaining the password from the administrator’s family, or do they mean they’re the administrator of the old old account who became deeply depressed and may or may not have committed suicide? 

As if this story can’t get anymore ridiculous, the very first video that @AnonScandinavia posted upon their return with the new account was a 50-some-year old guy (age not confirmed loool) wearing a mask and asking people to be his personal snitch by uploading documents from their personal devices to an insecure server this guy obviously runs because that’s not a screaming red flag in the activist community at all. What he wanted was any and all information pertaining to anyone who had pretended to be Anonymous Scandinavia or associated with them, which, of course, no one is aware of anyone “pretending” to be Anonymous Scandinavia for over three years now, but okay, buddy. 

This grown ass man then ended the video by threatening unknown individuals they claim are harassing and defaming people they support which is pretty hilarious based on the wack-a-doodle-defamation trolls this account has promoted over the years. I mean, let’s be serious, what kind of male “activist” and “hacktivist” makes this kind of video and then expects to be taken seriously? Like, was this dude including women and underage activists in his threats? What a misogynistic, abusive class act.

After dealing with the @AnonScan account for years, personally, I just think that they like to post or say things that make them appear way more important than they really are and, admittedly, I used to believe every word. But, again, you should come to your conclusions. 

The funny thing about all of this is that the first (and maybe only) tweet that Julian Assange retweeted from the @AnonScan account back in early 2017, which led a lot of us believing that Assange was working with the account, was a video that @AnonScan deliberately stole as their own from an Assange supporter who had created it. To this day, Anonymous Scandinavia has never given them credit and I should have known then what a complete and utter fraud this guy and his associates really are.

May 20, 2021: In other news, for those of you familiar with the Twitter user “Kaidinn,” apparently they recently claimed responsibility for the “@AnonFoxfire” account which was a part of the AnonIntelGroup with Ray Johansen. Although some people believe that Beth Bogaerts was behind the account due to the similarities in handles (@AnonFoxfire/@Foxfire2112) and her involvement with the hacktivist scene including working as an editor for one of Johansen’s associates as early as January 2017, it turns out that one of the most pathetic smear artists on the internet who used to work with Johansen is now claiming the account as theirs. What an absolute embarrassment for the hacking group and its associates.

DisclaimerTen more pages of disclaimers to follow.

If you were mentioned in this article because your associate(s) did or said something stupid/dishonest, that’s not a suggestion that you did or said something stupid/dishonest or that you took part in it. Of course, some may conclude on their own that you associate with stupid/dishonest individuals but that’s called having the right to an opinion. If I’ve questioned something that doesn’t make sense to me, that’s not me spinning the confusing material you’ve put out. That’s me trying to make sense out of something that doesn’t make sense. And if I’ve noted that you failed to back up your allegations that means I either missed where you posted it or you failed to back your shiz up.

If I haven’t specifically stated that I believe (my opinion) someone is associated with someone else or an event, then it means just that. I haven’t reported an association nor is there any inference of association on my part. For example, just because someone is mentioned in this article, it doesn’t mean that they’re involved or associated with everyone and everything else mentioned. If I believe that there’s an association between people and/or events, I’ll specifically report it. 

If anyone mentioned in this article wants to claim that I have associated them with someone else or an event because I didn’t disclose every single person and event in the world that they are NOT associated with, that’s called gaslighting an audience and it’s absurd hogwash i.e. “They mentioned that I liked bananas but they didn’t disclose that I don’t like apples. Why are they trying to associate me with apples???” Or something similar to this lovely gem, “I did NOT give Trish the thumb drive!” in order to make their lazy audience believe that it was reported they gave Trish the thumb drive when, in fact, that was never reported, let alone inferred.

That’s some of the BS I’m talking about so try not to act like a psychiatric patient, intelligence agent, or paid cyber mercenary by doing these things. If you would like to share your story, viewpoint, or any evidence that pertains to this article, or feel strongly that something needs to be clarified or corrected (again, that actually pertains to the article), you can reach me at with any questions or concerns.

I cannot confirm and am not confirming the legitimacy of any messages or emails in this article. Please see a doctor if sensitivity continues. If anyone asks, feel free to tell them that I work for Schoenberger, Fitzgibbon, Steven Biss, the CIA, or really just about any intelligence agency because your idiocy, ongoing defamation, and failure as a human is truly a sight to behold for the rest of us.

This is an opinion piece about my own theories and viewpoint. You should research this story and events yourself and come to your own conclusions.

Post Disclaimer

This is an Op-ed article. The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. While we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information contained on the post for any purpose. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site.

The views or opinions represented in this blog do not represent those of people, institutions or organizations that the owner may or may not be associated with in professional or personal capacity, unless explicitly stated. Any views or opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, or individual.

The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.  The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.

1 Comment

Leave a Reply