My apologies for repeatedly stating this but The Rabbit Files has 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 Rabbit Files 8.4.
I also invite you to visit the “Updates, Disclaimers, and Corrections” page which has been recently updated with some interesting new content. There’s also a Rabbit Files timeline although full disclosure it hasn’t been updated in awhile. 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.
As a reminder, the entire Rabbit Files 8.0 series, which will finally conclude with this article, has generally focused on Guccifer 2 and the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. In the last article, we started with Ed Butowsky’s interview with Sy Hersh and ended with the role that whistleblower attorney, Jesselyn Radack, and Beth Bogaerts’ associate, “Lestat,” has played in pushing lies and manufactured drama about the Seth Rich case.
The op-ed also included Bogaerts’ role in privately disseminating a PowerPoint presentation from a company in its initial stages called Janus. Although the company included former military figures and independent contractors and it’s concerning that any activist would be involved in it, Bogaerts used the PowerPoint as part of a whisper campaign against Trevor Fitzgibbon to supplement her suggestion that he worked with Erik Prince. Bogaerts (@HumanOfMind) has since admitted that she has no evidence whatsoever to support her claims.
You can also find a newly leaked email at Updates, Disclaimers, and Corrections page that ironically shows how Bogaerts not only knew at least one of these former military figures involved in the company, it appears she wanted to use his work to boost the PR firm, Shadowbox, that she funded and helped co-found. And last but not least, in this Rabbit Files edition, we’re going to continue discussing Ed Butowsky, the infamous FOX news story about Seth Rich, and Kim Dotcom.
Ed Butowsky, Ed Wheeler, and Malia Zimmerman
About a month after Ed Butowsky spoke with investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, about the Seth Rich case, he reached out to D.C. private investigator, Rod Wheeler, and asked if he would be interested in investigating Rich’s murder. On February 28, 2017, Wheeler met with both Butowsky and FOX news reporter, Maria Zimmerman, to discuss the case.
Approximately two months later, Lara Logan, an investigative journalist and longtime friend of Butowsky, reached out to Trevor Fitzgibbon who had previously met Logan through his former PR firm, Fitzgibbon Media. Logan told him that Rich leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks and that she wanted to introduce him to Butowsky. At some point, that introduction was made.
Approximately two weeks after Logan messaged Fitzgibbon, Butowsky and Wheeler met with then-White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, to discuss the case. But it wasn’t just Spicer that they met with about Seth Rich. They also landed a meeting with Kash Patel, an investigator for Ranking Member of the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Devin Nunes.
According to RollingStone.com, Zimmerman, Butowsky, and Wheeler discussed Nunes and Patel in text messages and in emails dated March 31, 2017:
“Zimmerman told Butowsky and Wheeler that Nunes ‘needs to help us.’ Butowsky wrote back, ‘I will get very aggressive with Devin over the weekend.’ In early May [2017], Butowsky helped arrange a meeting between Wheeler and Kash Patel, an investigator for Nunes on the Intelligence Committee. Butowsky texted Wheeler that the ‘main goal’ with Patel was ‘to get him to get the FBI record’ and ‘give us a wink to go story [sic] that the [Seth Rich] emails are there.’
Zimmerman’s full comments to Butowsky actually read, “That’s why Devin Nunes needs to help us, or get his guy to. What we know dispels the whole [Russiagate] narrative,” which is pretty much the smoking gun that proves the Butowsky-Wheeler-Zimmerman investigation was not strictly about helping the Rich family find the person(s) responsible for their son’s death.
And it was Wheeler’s deposition in Rich et al v. Fox News Network LLC, that confirmed Wheeler did, indeed, meet with Kash Patel and that Butowsky told him Devin Nunes was a “good friend of his that he had been in touch” with about Seth Rich.
If you’re not familiar with Kash Patel, he received a commendation from the CIA in 2015, and Trump considered him for CIA director for a hot minute. After working alongside Nunes, in February 2020, he became senior advisor to acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell. According to Politico:
“Kash Patel, a former top National Security Council official who also played a key role as a Hill staffer in helping Republicans discredit the Russia probe, is now a senior adviser for new acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell…It’s not clear what exact role Patel is playing in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the U.S. intelligence community.”
For all the Assange supporters out there, you probably remember Richard Grenell, the former U.S. Ambassador to Germany and a close associate of Arthur Schwartz. Schwartz is an advisor to Donald Trump Jr. and an (former?) associate of Cassandra Fairbanks. Fairbanks claimed in 2020 that Schwartz threatened her after she retweeted an article that alleged Grenell, while ambo to Germany, was responsible for Julian Assange’s arrest. Thread:
FOX news and Kim Dotcom
After meeting with Sean Spicer and Kash Patel, the investigative team was able to get FOX to publish Zimmerman’s story about Seth Rich on May 16, 2017. On that same day, Kim Dotcom, a multi-convicted millionaire who was and still is fighting extradition to the United States, posted on Twitter that “Seth was @WikiLeaks DNC source” and that he was “killed for that reason.”
The first question someone should probably ask Dotcom is whether or not he spoke to anyone prior to making those statements whether it be FOX, Butowsky, or even the U.S. Department of Justice because it seems super weird that he suddenly went public with all of these outlandish statements that, to this day, he has never backed up and after remaining silent when WikiLeaks’ offered a $20,000 reward for any information about Rich’s death nine months earlier.
The only other thing I want to point out about this guy aside from the fact he probably made life a living hell for Seth Rich’s family is what I’ve pointed out numerous times already: In 2015, when Dotcom said that Assange was going to be Hillary Clinton’s worst nightmare, that was not his original statement. I repeat, for all the conspiracy theorists in the back, that was not his original statement.
On December 1, 2014, Dotcom tweeted, “I’m your Internet Freedom fighter AND Hillary’s worst nightmare in 2016!” It was five months later that he changed it to Assange during a May 13th, 2015 interview with Bloomberg’s Emily Chang that took place only 31 days after Clinton announced her presidential run:
Chang: “So you said you were going to bring the Internet Party to the U.S. in 2016. Why? What’s your goal?”
Dotcom: “Well, because I think there’s a big group of people out there that disagree with what’s going on, you know. They want to have their privacy back. They want to have internet freedom.”
Chang: “You tweeted that you were going to be Hillary’s worst nightmare in 2016. How so?”
Dotcom: “Well, I have to say it’s probably more Julian *everyone chuckles* but I’m aware of some of the things that are going to be roadblocks for her. So, you know, if I can provide some transparency with these people and make them part of what the Internet Party stands for then, you know, I will be happy to do that.”
Chang: “You’re saying Julian Assange is gonna be Hillary’s worst nightmare?”
Dotcom: “I think so, yeah.”
Chang: “How so?”
Dotcom: “Well, he has access to information.”
Chang: “What information?”
Dotcom: “I don’t know the specifics.”
Chang: “Why Hillary in particular?”
Dotcom: “Well, Hillary hates Julian. She is just an adversary of, I think, internet freedom.”
Right. I’m sure at the top of Assange’s list of issues he had with Hillary Clinton was “internet freedom.” I mean, this is really just an informercial for Dotcom’s New Zealand political party that Unity4J’s Suzie Dawson took over in February 2017, and then ran straight into the ground after using it to inflate her ego and personal campaigns.
So fast forward to what Dotcom publicly stated after the bogus FOX news story was published, “In late 2014 a person contacted me about helping me to start a branch of the Internet Party in the United States. He called himself Panda. I now know that Panda was Seth Rich,” and “If Congress includes #SethRich case into their Russia probe I’ll give written testimony with evidence that Seth Rich was @WikiLeaks source.”
This is just more promotional material for his political party and essentially a public offer to help the Trump administration with that pesky Russiagate problem. At least that’s what he wanted everyone to think he could do.
And if we are to believe Dotcom’s 2015 statements about Assange being Hillary’s worst nightmare because, you know, he has “access to information,” and that information was the leaked DNC emails from Seth Rich (according to the conspiracy theory), that would mean that Seth Rich started pilfering the DNC emails PRIOR to May 2015, or he at least told WikiLeaks, Assange, Dotcom, or someone relayed it back to these people that he was going to pilfer them, otherwise how in the world would Dotcom know about it in early May 2015 when he made the statement to Bloomberg?
Additionally, part of the whole Seth Rich conspiracy is that he leaked DNC emails because he was upset with voter fraud and what the DNC did to Bernie Sanders but as I stated in The Rabbit Files 4.0: Revisiting the .7z Files:
“I thought the conspiracy included [Seth] Rich being disillusioned with the DNC, what they did to Bernie, and voter fraud [and that’s why] he decided to leak the files so how exactly was any of that happening prior to May 2015? Hillary announced her candidacy only 31 days prior to Dotcom’s Bloomberg interview.”
Right. How in the world was any of that happening in May 2015? Oh, that’s right, it wasn’t and Dotcom and his supporters are full of hot air.
Afterthought
In the context of what The Rabbit Files is about, it’s important to remember that Trevor Fitzgibbon did not know Butowsky personally until approximately mid-April 2017, or sometime shortly thereafter. At the time, he was already in communication with Beth Bogaerts and she herself claimed in court documents that she met him in December 2016, although she’s also admitted that she can’t remember when she met him (and basically threw some dates out there for the sake of a lawsuit she filed last year).
The point being is that Fitzgibbon knew Butowsky for a very short period of time before Bogaerts and Thomas Schoenberger knew him, or at least knew of him, and their company, Shadowbox, obtained him as a client.
Four months after Butowsky became their client, Fitzgibbon left Shadowbox and it was Bogaerts’ associates, Schoenberger and Manny Chavez, who were put up in a hotel by Devin Nunes’ good friend for a couple of months, not Fitzgibbon.
Remember that interview that Butowsky did with Cassandra Fairbanks that was mentioned in the last Rabbit Files because “Lestat” (@ATafoyovsky) inexplicably tried to use it to prove that it was Lara Logan’s husband or Fitzgibbon who told Butowsky about Seymour Hersh, rather than Larry Johnson?
That interview took place after Fitzgibbon left Shadowbox but while Butowsky was still paying for Schoenberger and Chavez to stay in a hotel room in Texas. This was of course while Bogaerts was still working with the two of them via Shadowbox and Cicada 3301.
In fact, wasn’t it Lestat who was also working with Bogaerts via Cicada 3301 and getting paid by her “each week” during this same time period or shortly thereafte? Or is this leaked email not real?
You don’t finance larpers and a PR firm, work with Ed Butowsky for over seven months after he paid you $20,000, and all of a sudden get to point the finger at everyone else for your problems and claim, “I’m just a naive little thing and had no idea who Joe Burkett or Butowsky was, or what members of Shadowbox were doing.” Give me a break. Also see the latest in “Updates, Disclaimers, and Corrections” for more on this insanity where certain individuals involved in the same events as others are now trying to blame everyone else for their own choices.
Brief 8.0 Series Timeline
This article concludes the 8.0 series (ugh finally) but before we move on here’s a brief timeline of the series:
In January 2017, Butowsky interviewed Sy Hersh about the Seth Rich case after Larry Johnson put them in contact with each other. At the same time, Cicada 3301 released their 2017 puzzle, “A Fludd Approaches…”
In early March 2017, Beth Bogaerts’ associate, Anonymous Scandinavia, started promoting a bogus story that accused DNC worker, Warren Flood, of being the guy behind Guccifer 2. The conspiracy played right into the hands of Cicada 3301, which Bogaerts claimed she had been introduced to approximately two months prior. As a side note, her narrative was recently debunked and Twitter archives show that she knew about and likely promoted Cicada 3301 earlier than she said she did. WikiLeaks eventually promoted the Warren Flood conspiracy, too, despite the fact it accused an innocent man of wrong doing.
On April 8, 2017, playboy model, Robbin Young, released her alleged August 2016 DMs with Guccifer 2 in response to the Warren Flood conspiracy. The DMs revealed that Guccifer 2 told her that Seth Rich was their source but an independent researcher going by “Hannibal Moot” posted evidence that seemed to indicate some of the Young/Guccifer DMs were manipulated. This, however, did not stop the conspiracy.
In mid-April, Lara Logan told Trevor Fitzgibbon that Seth leaked the DNC emails and she was going to put him in touch with her longtime associate, Ed Butowsky. A few weeks later, Butowsky and Wheeler met with Sean Spicer about the Rich case.
Due to Butowsky’s close ties to Devin Nunes, in early May, Wheeler also met with Kash Patel, and at some point during the month of May, independent journalist, Trish Negron, claims that Bogaerts started peddling the .7z files as the “Seth Rich” files. Note the close time frame between when Young released her DMs where Guccifer 2 said that Seth Rich was their source and when Bogaerts started peddling the .7z files which allegedly came from Guccifer 2.
In the third week of May, FOX retracted Zimmerman’s article on Seth Rich and the following week Young claimed that all of her DMs with Guccifer 2 had been mysteriously deleted by Twitter but despite all of this, the conspiracy lived on.
I’m going to point out here how chummy Bogaerts’ friend, Anonymous Scandinavia, is with Robbin Young especially since the anonymous account is closely associated with the Cicada 3301 insider, it was responsible for initially promoting Tracy Beanz in the Assange support community and claiming that WikiLeaks was compiling her videos, and was one of the first to push a bogus story about Warren Flood that played directly into the hands of Cicada 3301’s 2017 puzzle, “A Fludd Approaches,” because—
—thanks to Bogaerts’ friend, White Rabbit, the conspiracy continued because a mere five days after Young lost her DMs with Guccifer, he handed over a thumb drive to Trish Negron under the guise it contained the “Seth Rich files.” This, of course, brings us full circle to the very beginning of this series, The Rabbit Files: Who Spoofed the Seth Rich Files. Welcome back, White Rabbit.
The Rabbit Files 7.0
File Summaries
The Rabbit Files 7.1
Timeline
The Rabbit Files 7.2
Updates/Corrections
Post Disclaimer
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 jimmysllama@protonmail.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.
If I described you as a fruit basket or even a mental patient it's because that is my opinion of you, it's not a diagnosis. I'm not a psychiatrist nor should anyone take my personal opinions as some sort of clinical assessment. Contact @BellaMagnani if you want a rundown on the psych profile she ran on you.
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.