As I mentioned previously, I realize that The Rabbit Files is becoming a fairly convoluted story so for anyone just joining the series or you need a refresher on where we’re at and where we’ve been, I highly recommend you visit the The Rabbit Files summaries page. It includes a summary of all The Rabbit Files and it’s been recently updated to include the last one published, The Rabbit Files 8.4. A summary of the entire series or even just one set of files has become too long and cumbersome to include as an introduction to each article.
I also invite you to visit the “Updates, Disclaimers, and Corrections” page which has been recently updated with new content including why I enjoyed almost two glorious weeks away from the screaming bowels of hell we call Twitter; an update and correction about Jason Fishbein, a Florida attorney who was mentioned in The Rabbit 8.4; and the debunking of yet another lie Beth Bogaerts (@HumanOfMind) not only filed in court but has spread privately over the years.
Additionally, if you notice any mistakes or have any information pertaining to The Rabbit Files, especially with the timeline, feel free to reach out to me so I can correct them. And last but not least, as a reminder, the entire Rabbit Files 8.0 series, which will be continued in this article, has generally focused on Guccifer 2 and the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.
In The Rabbit Files 8.4, we left off with the private DMs between former Playboy model, Robbin Young, and Guccifer 2, and how the Romanian persona told her that Seth Rich was their source, inexplicably negating everything they had said previously about being a lone wolf hacker. Guccifer 2’s statement obviously worked in favor of Trump and Assange who would benefit from the demise of Russiagate but on the flip side, it essentially characterized Seth Rich as an agent of Russia based on U.S. intelligence reports that the Guccifer 2 persona was controlled by the GRU.
Shortly after Young released the DMs to the public, an independent researcher appeared to debunk the messages with some fairly convincing evidence that they had been manufactured. After the researcher published his findings, Young later claimed that her DMs with Guccifer 2 had mysteriously disappeared.
One person who spoke privately to Young about her DMs was Ed Butowsky and because Butowsky has played such a large role in the Seth Rich conspiracy he’s obviously worth a mention in The Rabbit Files. I’ll be covering his story in both this article and the next one.
The story starts with a three-hour meeting that took place between Ellen Ratner and Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London on November 5, 2016. During that meeting, Assange allegedly told her that Seth Rich was the one who leaked the DNC emails. According to Butowsky, Ratner shared this information with him and in mid-December he wrote to her, “Why don’t you speaking [sic] up about email hack?”
After tracking down and contacting the Rich family on or around December 17th, he wrote to Ratner again, “If the person you met with truly said what he did, is their [sic] a reason you we aren’t reporting it?”
Then, on or around January 15, 2017, Butowsky interviewed investigative journalist, Sy Hersh, about the case after Larry Johnson put them in contact with one another. This interview gives me an opportunity to debunk yet another lie that Beth Bogaerts and Jesselyn Radack’s associate, “Lestat” (@ATafoyovsky), has disseminated online about Butowsky, Larry Johnson, and Trevor Fitzgibbon to feed a private agenda that has purposely created more confusion surrounding the Seth Rich case and probably more anguish for his family.
Debunking @ATafoyovsky’s FBIAnon, Sy Hersh, Ed Butowsky Story
Over the course of the last year, Lestat has used one particular video to push the narrative that the original anonymous persona “FBIanon” was built around the Seth Rich conspiracy and that Thomas Schoenberger was behind it. Additionally, he also tried to claim that the husband of investigative journalist, Lara Logan, and/or Trevor Fitzgibbon was the same guy who told Ed Butowsky to contact Seymour Hersh about the Seth Rich case.
First, the original FBIanon showed up in June 2016 and a lot of what they dropped was a precursor to Pizzagate. In turn, Pizzagate was the precursor to Qanon. This part of the story is true hence the reason why Lestat conflates these facts with completely bogus allegations. You can read more about FBIanon, Pizzagate, and alt-right operations during the 2016 election HERE.
Second, despite what Jesselyn Radack’s associate tells you, Seth Rich was very much alive when FBIanon first appeared and they only mentioned Rich once after his murder so it’s beyond disgusting how far her associate has been willing to go to drag Rich’s family into more utterly false bullshite after all these years. If anything, the FBIanon persona was built around Steven Bannon and James Corsi’s conspiracy theories about the Clinton Foundation, alleged money laundering, and pay-to-play schemes.
As you can see in the Twitter thread below, Lestat used a video entitled, “FBIANON BREAKS SILENCE – #CIVILWAR COMING OR A FRENCH REVOLUTION? #FBIANON #AWANGATE” to push this agenda despite the fact he knows that the interview conducted in the video with “FBIanon” is not the real FBIanon that initially appeared in mid-2016. It’s fake. The video was originally published on the “Victurus Libertas” (“VL”) channel on August 31, 2017, ten months after the original FBIanon’s last appearance:
After convincing his sheeple that the original FBIanon centered their online persona around the Seth Rich conspiracy (they didn’t), Lestat not only used the interview with the fake FBIanon in the Victurus Libertas video to accuse everyone and their mother of being connected to Qanon, he used it to push the narrative that Thomas Schoenberger was behind the original FBI and that the husband of investigative journalist, Lara Logan, and/or Trevor Fitzgibbon was the same person who told Ed Butowsky to call Sy Hersh about the Seth Rich case. We already know that it was Larry Johnson who put Hersh in contact with Butowsky but let’s go over Lestat’s absurd fantasies anyways.
There’s no doubt that the Victurus Libertas video pertains to Ed Butowsky and that the fake FBIanon paints him in a glowing light. In fact, the video screams PR campaign and here are two important things that you should know before I get to the video’s transcript.
First, The co-founders of the PR firm, Shadowbox, which included Schoenberger and Beth Bogaerts, had already procured Ed Butowsky as a client approximately three weeks before this video was published. They were paid $20,000 to improve his image over the Seth Rich conspiracy and no, I’m not talking about how the money was dispersed, I’ve already covered that in a previous Rabbit Files. I’m talking about how much Shadowbox was paid and it’s a fact that they were paid $20K. My god, you have to disclaimer everything because of these freaks.
Second, two weeks before the video was published, on August 15, 2017, Matt Couch did a Periscope during which Ed Butowsky showed up in the live chat and stated, “Aaron Rich needs to come out and admit money is in his account,” implying that WikiLeaks paid Seth and Aaron Rich for leaking the DNC emails. Couch responded, “Ed just put it out there—Aaron Rich accepted money. Aaron Rich had money from WikiLeaks go into his personal account.”
So now you know where that information came from about the brothers being paid by WikiLeaks when you read the transcript from the Victurus Libertas-Fake FBIanon video below: Matt Couch and Shadowbox’s client, Ed Butowsky. Here’s the transcript:
“Question: We are hearing this. Some of the intel community we work with tells us, ‘Deep State is planning a civil war.’ Is that true?”
[FBIAnon] “Yes, it’s to avoid a French Revolution. It seems an American private citizen mucked up carefully planned coups to hoodwink the public for the umpteenth time.”
“Question: What private citizen, Assange?”
[FBIAnon] “No, it was a money manager named Ed Butowsky, a Texan.”
“Question: I heard about him. The guy who was trying to help the Seth Rich investigation. Is Butowsky a good guy or a bad guy?”
[FBIAnon] “He’s a private citizen. A good guy. From what I have looked into he underwrote what he thought would be an honest investigation and stumbled upon a hornet’s nest of deceit and intrigue. Sy Hersh knows one of our guys, a long-time source, career FBI. And our guy confirmed we have the evidence that Seth and his brother leaked.”
“Question: Did WikiLeaks pay for the intel?”
[FBIAnon] “Yes, Aaron asked his brother to compile the data to a Dropbox. WikiLeaks was given two teasers, both with about 1% of the data, later sold. WikiLeaks vetted, confirmed, and ponied up.”
Now I’m about to walk you through just one example of how convoluted Lestat (@ATafoyovsky) and his friends make the lies so it’s virtually impossible for those with little to no critical thinking skills to realize how fraudulent an operation this guy and his associates are running to further poison the WikiLeaks community and sway U.S. court cases which I warned ya’ll about last year. And then you should ask yourselves why they do it…
On November 18, 2020, approximately two months after Lestat, Ray Johansen, and Beth Bogaerts started targeted defamation operations against several people i.e. Bogaerts used her own court case to file false statements against me two days prior in a case I had nothing to do with, Lestat posted these two tweets:
In the first tweet he wrote that FBIanon said in the Victurus Libertas video, “Sy Hersh knows one of our guys, a long time source…,” and indeed, that’s exactly what the fake FBIanon said. FBIanon also said that this source was “career FBI” and that they “confirmed we [the FBI] have the evidence that Seth and his brother leaked.”
Then, using an interview that Butowsky did with Cassandra Fairbanks (screenshot above right), Lestat claims that Butowsky said “he met a friend” that wanted to sell something to the government and that it was this friend who told him about Sy Hersh. He then goes on to state that the person Butowsky mentioned in the interview was “the same person FBIAnon mentioned” so according to him the “career FBI” agent that fake FBIanon mentioned is the same guy that wanted to sell something to the government and told Butowsky about Sy Hersh.
Now here’s what Butowsky actually said in the video clip:
“A couple of days later I’m talking to a friend of mine who retired from some intelligence agency and I was talking to him about getting some product a friend of his developed and see if there was a way to get it into the government, to try and sell it. And I mentioned to him, ‘If you ever learn anything about this Seth Rich murder lemme know.’ Now this guy lived in Washington [D.C.] and Cassandra, he said, ‘You know what, as fate would have it, I know somebody who knows a lot about it.’
I went ‘Oh!’ He said, ‘Have you ever heard of a guy named Sy Hersh?’ I said, ‘No. I think I’ve heard something about him somewhere along the way but I don’t know him..” He said, ‘Well he writes and he’s written a lot about this and knows a lot about it but he can’t get it published by anybody.“
First of all, Butowsky never said his friend had developed a product, he said that the friend he was speaking to who I already mentioned was Larry Johnson had a friend who developed a product. But despite this, Lestat wants you to believe:
- The guy who developed a product is a friend of Ed Butowsky
- The guy who developed a product was the same guy who told Butowsky that Sy Hersh knew a lot about the Seth Rich case
- The guy who developed a product was also the “career FBI” agent who confirmed to FBIAnon that Seth Rich leaked to WikiLeaks
- Lestat calls this guy “Janus”
So let’s start destroying the rest of Lestat’s story by starting with the answer to “Who is Janus?”
Who is Janus?
Janus is a codename that Lestat is using for the husband of investigative journalist, Lara Logan, Trevor Fitzgibbon, or both because at one point they were both working with ex- and current military/contractors to put together some sort of PR/data firm called “Janus.”
Lestat’s associate, Beth Bogaerts, who was a member of both Cicada 3301 and Shadowbox, was given a Janus presentation in the fall of 2017, and then she privately disseminated it later like freaking candy as part of her false narrative and defamation campaign against Trevor Fitzgibbon that he was working with Erik Prince. That’s why Lestat had to tweet, “Don’t post the name,” because so many people know about it.
So anytime you see this particular narrative, now you know that it started with Bogaerts via a private whisper campaign she conducted. However, she eventually admitted to me over the phone that she had no idea—nor any evidence—that Fitzgibbon ever worked with Prince just like virtually everything else she accuses people of doing. Hence the reason why I’ve never published anything that said Fitzgibbon (or anyone else from Shadowbox) worked with Prince despite Bogaerts initially trying to convince me that he did.
And yes, of course it’s deeply concerning that anyone within an activist community would work directly with what appears to be some high-level military/contractors like Fitzgibbon did but that doesn’t mean you get to make up a bunch of manufactured drama about Erik Prince because you forgot to take your “Try not to act like a fed today” pills.
And don’t forget that Bogaerts is just as “guilty” of being associated with the same people Fitzgibbon was, and Logan’s husband’s military background, which included planting propaganda in Iraqi media, never seemed to bother her until she had a falling out with Fitzgibbon. For instance, despite describing Logan’s husband as a “spook” and former CIA agent (he’s not CIA), Bogaerts happily tried to peddle White Rabbit’s “Seth Rich” thumb drive to him and leaked emails show that she was in contact with him about their PR company, Shadowbox.
And note in the screenshot above that are my own time-stamped notes with another journalist while I was speaking with Bogaerts on the phone, she didn’t just admit that she had no idea if Fitzgibbon ever worked with Prince, she also admitted that her associate, whistleblower attorney, Jesselyn Radack, said that Fitzgibbon was not involved with “big people” and that he was “broke” but how is that possible if crazy pants’ associates keep saying that he’s running all these infiltration ops and campaigns on behalf of guys like Prince, Steve Biss and Devin Nunes?
Or what about Lestat who claims that Fitzgibbon is part of Qanon and is now trying to take down Canada?
SO HE’S BROKE AND DOESN’T HAVE THE POWER TO TAKE DOWN CANADA???
I mean, this entire thing has got to be one of the stupidest timelines in history. Made by stupid people for stupid people.
And frankly, I’m not sure how much room Bogaerts has to be flinging around made up allegations about Erik Prince seeing that she was paying Fitzgibbon, Schoenberger and Manny Chavez from a credit union account that was receiving over $130,000 a year in direct deposits from Schlumberger, the second largest oil services company in the world next to Dick Chaney’s Halliburton (See “Are Funds from Oil Giant Schlumberger Financing Defamation Campaigns?“)
And in case you missed it, Schlumberger once boasted as one of their research associates, Dr. Alexander Tayler, the same guy who started working at Cambridge Analytica as their lead data scientist directly after leaving Schlumberger. Taylor also acted as interim CEO after Alexander Nix stepped down from the company so there’s that but yes, let’s concentrate on how Fitzgibbon is being paid by the CIA to take out America’s northern neighbors. I mean FFS, people.
Larry Johnson and Sy Hersh
Bogaerts and her associates’ manufactured drama and defamation campaigns are almost as absurd as Lestat’s statements that “Janus” a.k.a. Logan’s husband a.k.a. Fitzgibbon is the same “career FBI” guy that fake FBIanon mentioned in the Victurus Libertas video and Butowsky’s friend who told him about Sy Hersh. Hersh’s July 15, 2020 deposition alone in the Rich v. Butowsky case debunks this stupidity:
Hersh testified that it was former CIA agent, Larry Johnson—not Logan’s husband, not Fitzgibbon, not FBIanon’s “career FBI source,” and not “Janus” unless Lestat is calling Larry Johnson “Janus” which literally makes no sense—who asked him to contact Butowsky. When Butowsky stated in the interview with Fairbanks that he was speaking with a friend of his, he was talking about Larry Johnson.
Oh, and what’s this? Is this Ed Butowsky stating at the 19:55 mark that “Larry” told Sy Hersh to call him? Yeah, it sure is.
None of this is a secret and it’s been out there for a long time, proving once again that Jesselyn Radack and Bogaerts’ associate, Lestat, lacks any and all research and critical thinking skills or is a manipulative liar and propaganda monger.
Some of you might have noticed that Hersh wasn’t sure but thought that maybe it was Johnson, not Johnson’s friend, who was looking to drum up business for a product they created and that Johnson asked Hersh to contact Butowsky on his behalf. But how in the world does this make sense if Johnson was already a friend of Butowsky, he was in direct contact with him, and he had already asked Butowsky to help his friend with some alleged product?
And although Lestat’s narrative has already been completely destroyed, let’s humor him for a moment and say that Johnson contacted Butowsky in an effort to drum up business for “Janus,” which, according to Lestat, would be Lara Logan’s husband and/or Trevor Fitzgibbon, right? Right. Well, let’s take a look at the facts…
It’s well-known that Lara Logan and Butowsky have known each other since Benghazi, if not earlier. Fitzgibbon has also known Logan via his former PR firm, Fitzgibbon Media, meaning he knew her prior to Butowsky speaking to Larry Johnson and Sy Hersh.
So knowing this, why would Logan’s husband a.k.a. “Janus” and/or Fitzgibbon speak to Larry Johnson and be all, “Hey, can you talk to Ed Butowsky about drumming up some business for us?,” when Logan and her husband have known Butowsky for like a decade. Even better, why would Johnson contact Butowsky and ask him to help out Logan’s husband? Or ask Sy Hersh to contact Butowsky in order to help Logan’s husband? Logan and/or her husband would obviously just speak with Butowsky directly.
This is how absurd Lestat and his little “conspiracies” are and we’ll get more into the content of the Victurus Libertas-FBIanon video and Shadowbox in a later Rabbit Files. The bottom line is that Lestat desperately needs you to believe that the fake FBIanon is the original FBIanon and that Thomas Schoenberger was behind the original so that he can tie Trevor Fitzgibbon to this story (via Shadowbox) and, by extension, Qanon because Fitzgibbon is currently suing Lestat’s associate, Beth Bogaerts, for breach of contract.
Lestat and his associates have spent over 18 months now running defamation campaigns and pushing propaganda in the media to sway U.S. court cases which, again, I warned everyone about last year. So the next time you see any of these clowns crying about how unjust the media and U.S. court system is to Julian Assange or whistleblowers like Daniel Hale, just remember that they operate in the same manner as the U.S. government.
The Rabbit Files 7.1
The Rabbit Files 7.2
Featured image: “Cheshire Cat” via gthic.com
Disclaimer: Ten thousand 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 email@example.com 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 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.